Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Gary Schnabl wrote:
Jean Hollis Weber wrote:
Gary,
In notes over the past month, you have mentioned wanting others to
review the docs you put into a folder for Writer Guide Drafts (under
writer/feedback). However, those docs have a state of Published, so
they do not appear in the Review List.
In addition to the other ways of indicating docs for review (the
Forum, notes to this list), you need to Submit those docs (so their
state is Pending and they appear on the Review List). I'm sure many
people would look at the Published state and think "oh, these have
been done; I don't need to look at them; but why are they not in the
Published folder?" Confusion all around, and the next step of review
doesn't get done.
--Jean
After I copyedited them, I intended to and did park them temporarily
in another subfolder in the Feedback folder for the Guide, hoping
that some might critique, proof, or otherwise edit them before my
placing them into their "final" parking lot and assigning their
status as "published."
Er, ok, but if they are published, then why aren't they in the
Published folder? Items in the draft or feedback folders should not be
published.
Hm, I just realised that I should have "retracted" those items when I
was reviewing them. I have just done so for Chapters 6 and 7. The
latest version of those chapters are now the ones I have put in the
Feedback folder.
But again, it was incredibly silent the past few weeks, message-wise.
Heh. I wonder how much of that is due to my complete absence from the
Internet? :-) But seriously, this list usually is very quiet, even
when work is getting done.
Cheers, Jean
I left them there hoping that somebody might critique them at first.
But, apparently nobody did so. Probably assumed that they were OK,
perhaps. In any event, there were some screenshot issues that were being
deferred until 2.0.3.
(1) The one graphic in Chapter 7 that had two labels for that one icon
whose functionality had changed from previous GUIs AND
(2) the one screenshot that had three different interpretations (this
was described in the forum) and whose OOo issue had since been resolved.
So these two need fixing.
