On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 23:47 +0100, Tom Davies wrote: > Hi :) > I think the ODF guides do most of what you want from html ones. The pdfs are > good but the odfs are more flexible. > Regards from > Tom :) >
Each format serves the needs of different audiences. The PDFs are primarily for the many people who want to print pages for reference, and for those people who need an offline manual, something they can store on their computer for use when they are not connected to the internet. PDFs are also good for people who have not yet installed LibreOffice or OOo or who might need to look up something on a machine that doesn't have LibO or OOo on it. HTML is great for people who prefer to read stuff online and are able to do so when they want the info. I do not think ODT is suitable for most users as a reference document, though it is fine for many and of course necessary if one wants to edit the file. Inexperienced users can bugger up an ODT faster than you can say "don't do that!" But they can't easily change a PDF, and they are more likely to already know how to open and read a PDF than an ODT. A personal example of use: While I was travelling with my iPad as my only computer, I could easily store and read PDFs on it, or download them when needed (when I could find a connection), but ODTs were inconvenient. I eventually found a program that would open them (by converting to something, HTML probably) but there were no pages and some of the formatting was a bit messed up. If I needed or wanted to answer a question for someone (as I did on a few occasions), it was a hassle that PDFs avoid. When I had an internet connection, I could have looked up something on a wiki or a website, but usually I was working offline. I may be unusual in my working conditions, but really this is not a "one size fits all" situation. Errrr.... didn't mean to have that turn into a rant, but it did. ;-) --Jean > ________________________________ > From: John Cleland <j...@john-cleland.co.uk> > To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org > Sent: Tue, 21 June, 2011 23:32:17 > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides > > Hi Jean > > -----Original Message----- From: Jean Hollis Weber > Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:21 PM > To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org > Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides > > On Tue, 2011-06-21 at 21:49 +0100, John Cleland wrote: > > >> When checking the PDF version of the Calc guide I found it hard, compared > >> to > >>html to move around the document. I would like to propose that an HTML > >>version > >>is produced. I would be happy to undertake the work. > >> > >> I am not sure what open source html producers/editors are available, but > >> will > >>do some research into what is available. > >> > >> Does anyone else think this is a good/bad idea. > > > > The following questions are to help me get a better idea of exactly what > > you > >are proposing. > > > Are you proposing to do this for all the guides, or just the Calc Guide? > I am proposing to do this for all guides > > > Where do you propose to put the HTML version? > Somewhere on the documentation Website > > > Why HTML and not wiki? > I envisage an HTML page that looks similar to a .chm file where the contents > are > down the left and the text on the right. > > > How do you propose to keep the HTML version up to date? > Not thought about this, I think the only way would probably be manually > > > BTW, my general view is that if someone has an idea, they should just run > > with > >it. I do that all the time. ;-) > > >> --Jean > > I think HTML is so much easier than a PDF to use that it is worth looking at -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@global.libreoffice.org Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/ All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted
