> Jeff Prater wrote:
> > In my opinion, we should only have a single version of documentation for
> > both web, print, and the built-in "help."
I agree with what Andrea says.
In addition, the help file is supposed to explain the product screen-by-screen
and control-by-control.
The reason is the user would mostly jump from a particular screen, and you have
to help him about that screen.
On the other hand, a user's manual would have more theory (compared to built-in
help) and also a different flow of topics.
So both these documents have to be separate.
Probably Microsoft has tried to solve this by inserting "All about" sections in
its help file.
So while the help screen focuses on the controls of a particular screen, the
overall picture is not lost.
The user has TWO choices now: He can check what a control does, or understand
the entire topic top-down.
***
BTW all this discussion means LibO should make it a priority development target
to be compatible with such web-based documentation.
Regarding the "online vs offline" debate, I have seen the following arguments:
Why online:
1. The time of offline editors like MSO and OOo has come and gone (in favor of
online editors like Google Docs and MSO live)
2. The netbooks and pads will force people towards online editors.
Why offline:
1. Most/many countries and regions don't have enough bandwidth, or reliable
connection,
2. Many users have or their lifestyle forces them to have only intermittent
access to net.
2. Even if the net is accessible, many people can't afford the cost.
So catering to both types of users would mean making a documentation system
that is convertible.
This conversion may not be "live": For example, wikipedia does the wiki-to-pdf
conversion periodically.
On the other hand, there is the PediaPress approach (convert your own odt/pdf ;
or Print-on-demand).
Regards,
Narayan
--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to [email protected]
List archive: http://www.libreoffice.org/lists/documentation/
*** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
