Daniel (and everyone in OOoauthors), Sorry this is so late, but I did need some time to think about this situation (and allow myself time to cool down).
I considered what I said, and even though I still agree with most of it, I should have expressed it as simply, "I don't agree with your (major) edits". Some of your editing comments would be accepted by anyone in this group, and are acceptable to me, too. As I said I do have a habit of writing as I speak, which is not the way of technical writing. And, maybe my text can be "cleaned up" a bit more without removing the basic ideas I am trying to present. I've been wrong before. I still believe that the "cuts" are unnecessary, however, I am willing to discuss this matter; and, may concede if others feel your position is the best for all. In the end I want to do the work that is best for the OOo project as a whole. On Wed, 2005-02-23 at 16:11 -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote: > Hi Rick, > > I didn't mean to trash it. But I felt that most of the content of the > first couple of pages should go some place else. > > Of course, I'm just another guy. No particular reason why I am right and > you are wrong. That's why we have Jean and Janet here to guide us. > > Cheers, > Daniel. > > > On Wed, Feb 23, 2005 at 10:40:48AM +0000, Rick Barnes wrote: > > Daniel, > > > > I'm not exactly sure what you want to have, a User's guide or a > > brochure. Since you just began editing my work I am assuming that you > > will trash the rest of the content much the same. When I took the > > Chapter over I was told by Jean to lengthen it, to add content: > > > > ************************BEGIN quoted text********************* > > > > This is a tiny chapter. Only a couple of pages of content. <snip> > > > > If you can think of content that should be added to this chapter, please > > go ahead and do so. > > > > At the moment I don't have time to add content (I truly wish I did have > > time), but I'd like to make some observations, now that I've had a > > better look at the chapter. > > > > I think what you've got is good, but ... > > > > I see three audiences for this chapter: > > (1) New users not migrating from another major office suite. > > (2) New users who are migrating from another major office suite. > > (3) People upgrading from OOo 1.x. > > > > The comparison of features tables are good for people in group 1, but > > putting on my "new OOo user" hat, I'm left wondering "is that all there > > is?" I think a more detailed listing (not comparison) of some features > > might help. > > > > A "What's new in 2.0" section would be really good, especially for the > > people in group 3. > > > > For group 1, the more detailed listing -- and brief description -- of > > features would be good too. For one thing, some of these people will not > > be aware of many of the things an office suite can do. For another, the > > listing can help lead readers to the chapters (or guides) describing how > > (and why) to use those features. > > > > Jean > > > > *************************END quoted text********************* > > > > > > I don't think my text is that complex...in fact it is very informative. > > It contains information that you would need to spend some time finding > > on the OOo website and from several other sources. I believe that the > > text on Open Source and OOo's licensing speaks to "New users who are > > migrating from another major office suite." Switching from proprietary > > software to F/OSS is a MAJOR deal. They need to know why F/OSS is > > better, or at least comparable. > > > > Your comment "This entire paragraph is intended for current 1.x users. > > Though this is an important audience, this isn't the right place for > > that kind of information." is wrong since the paragraph ends with the > > line: "If you are new to OpenOffice.org, its Open Source development, > > and the vibrant community that produces it, you will find it beneficial > > to read this chapter." > > > > You suggest "some of your introductory content should be relocated to > > appendices (e.g. "history of OOo")" if this were a research paper or > > thesis, I might agree. But I would say that most users NEVER look in an > > Appendix for such content...shortcut keys or support information, maybe > > (but only in desperation), but fluff like history, never! If my text > > "bores" them they can skip to the section they want to read...an odd > > thing about your audience is that they will skip what they think is > > unnecessary and read only what they want. You seem to think that they > > will be insulted and not finish reading the chapter? > > > > Look at some of the version 1.x docs...compare them with professional > > docs and you will see that the OOo docs lack depth (my opinion as a > > user. I'm not a professional technical writer). I looked them over as a > > prospective user and found them useless for the most part...this is the > > reason I thought I might be useful here. > > > > I know that my grammar is poor and I tend to be wordy and use > > colloquialisms, so I accept editing on that level. The funny thing is > > you even deleted entire sections that came from _your_ first draft. > > > > I'm not discouraged...angry is a better word. I just wasted a lot of > > time on this document (there was a lot of research required for this > > chapter, too). I need some time to decide whether I want to continue > > with this project. My time is valuable whether I donate it or get paid > > for it. > > > > You might as well finish this chapter now! I've lost the taste for this > > nonsense right now. Maybe you folks should try "mentoring" people with > > their first solo work so that they do not waste time on useless content. > > > > "Don't get discouraged..."? > > > > On Tue, 2005-02-22 at 20:23 -0500, Daniel Carrera wrote: > > > Hi Rick, > > > > > > I have uploaded a reviewed version of the file. > > > > > > http://oooauthors.org/groups/authors/userguide2/gettingstarted/feedback/What_is_OOo_22Feb05_RB_DC.sxw/file_view > > > > > > You obviously know the subject matter well. But that has caused you to > > > write a rather complex document. In my opinion, it violates the principle > > > of Plain English. That is, using the simplest terms and explanations that > > > will get a point accross. It is hard to overstate the importance of this. > > > I also think that some of your introductory content should be relocated > > > to > > > appendices (e.g. "history of OOo"). We don't want users to feel like they > > > need to know all the details to answer the question "what is OOo?". > > > > > > Don't get discouraged Rick. Things will get easier, I promise. Getting > > > the > > > first chapter published is by far the hardest, because you have to deal > > > with a lot of tech writing issues. The next chapter is easier, and the > > > next one is easier yet. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Daniel. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 22, 2005 at 04:24:47PM +0000, Rick Barnes wrote: > > > > I have just uploaded a new draft of the "What is OOo?" chapter, the last > > > > reviews were fairly light...is this close to publishing??? > > > > > > > > -- > > Regards, > > > > Rick Barnes > > www.nostabo.net > > > > ******************************************************************* > > PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL > > This electronic mail is solely for the use of the addressee and may > > contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you receive > > this electronic mail in error, please delete it from your system > > immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or using any of the > > contact details noted herein. > > > > This e-mail sent via Evolution 2.0.3 running on a Linux 2.6.10 kernel. > > > -- Regards, Rick Barnes www.nostabo.net ******************************************************************* PRIVILEGED - PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL This electronic mail is solely for the use of the addressee and may contain information which is confidential or privileged. If you receive this electronic mail in error, please delete it from your system immediately and notify the sender by electronic mail or using any of the contact details noted herein. This e-mail sent via Evolution 2.0.3 running on a Linux 2.6.10 kernel.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
