On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 02:21:28PM +0100, Urs Liska wrote: > - I changed "Easier editing" to "Editing".
ok. I also like the "applicances" tab, although I agree with you that the name might be ideal (but I also can't think of a better name right now). > - I organized the entry scenario (= introduction.html) according to three > questions > - Why should I consider LilyPond? IMO "examples" should remain part of that. > - Does it really work/what's the real-world use? I'd be fine with calling that box "LilyPond in the real world", although I'm not certain if the applicances should be in this category. I mean, some of them make sense (like wikipedia), but others seem like "toy" examples. If anything, I think that the "web frontends" should get their own tab. > This is reflected in the layout of the boxes on introduction.html > while it's irrelevant in which direction the user proceeds from the > "Why" box At the moment, the order seems to go top-left, bottom-left, top-right, bottom-right. The general design of the website is to go top-left, top-right, bottom-left, bottom-right. I'm not certain this is an important distinction, but it's worth considering. However, I still think that text input and editing should be the final part of the introduction. > - I think it would be good to add something about version control on the > "Text input" page, but that's something I wouldn't want to do without > prior discussion. I disagree. The purpose of "text input" is to make potential users realize that yes, we use text, but no, it's not too complicated. "Version control" is a complicated concept for non-programmers which would dilute the previous message. You already mentioned version control on the Features page, which should be sufficient. > - I think the @contactUsAbout macro should be reconsidered. I agree, you made good points here. Please note that *this* is the kind of change that can be done immediately, submitted for review, etc. It doesn't need to wait for James to finish his changes or 2.18 to be released. I would *heavily* encourage you to submit small improvements like this soon, instead of combining them in a large reorganization that creates havoc for translators. Apart from the technical impact on the doc system, making small changes like this reassure developers that you're serious and that you know how the system works. > - The structure of the "Community" section is, ehm, wild. > I think it would be good to have an additional navigational layer. > But before thinking about a structure I'd like to know if this would be > accepted. Probably not. There's @chapters and @sections; having a bunch of @subsections for one chapter is a bit weird. I agree that Community is a bit wild; can you think of a division that would split it into two chapters? > - I have one question about the structure of "Manuals": > What the hell is this "Web" menu item for? The website. It's created as a pdf and info. One of the very early goals of the doc system is that all the information should be present via only info or pdfs (i.e. without an internet connection). - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel