Hi Dave,

Your revision of the template is quite helpful. Some of my thoughts follow 


On 11/5/2018 4:55 PM, Dave Barton wrote:
Another "little" LO Documentation task I set for myself over the weekend
was to draft a proposal for a template for the 6.x series guides, which
I have now completed and uploaded to:

Basically my draft is only an adaptation of Jean's original LO6.0
template. My draft is liberally scattered with comments, some in
response to Jean's original comments.

So what changes are proposed? The  main points are:

   * The question of image anchoring within a frame remains open. It may
     be that we have a need for 2 different anchors for electronically
     published chapters/guides and another for (Lulu) paper printed guides.

We should agree on how to handle this. I suggest talking about this Wednesday.

   * Wherever possible I have used "Document Properties" and other fields
     to automate the updating of documents.

   * In 2 of Jean's original comments, she makes valid recommendations to
     have additional character styles (LOMenu Path and LOKeystroke) for
     the possible requirement of style changes in future guides. I
     propose removing these additional styles because our documentation
     revision time frame does not really justify these extra styles and
     they only serve to complicate guide style formatting and confuse
     contributors as to when and which style to use. For a little
     simplification, I am proposing these character styles be removed and
     the identical default "*Strong Emphasis*" and "/Emphasis/" styles be
     used instead.

I wonder about eliminating the Keystroke and MenuPath styles. This is for two 

1. While you are concerned about adding those styles, the guides are
   already using them. My understanding is that AltSearch does not find
   character styles, so changing those styles could be time consuming.
2. As I believe Jean has mentioned, eliminating these two character
   styles (by replacing them with Emphasis and Strong Emphasis, which
   it sounds like have the same properties) prevents them from being
   used in a future redesign.

Perhaps I don't understand well enough why you propose eliminating these styles. Do you see clear benefits to reducing the number of styles?

   * Our current guides give little information to the reader about the
     content/layout of the chapter/guide, So I have inserted a new
     section, which includes macOS/other OS key equivalents, moving it
     fro the "Copyright" page. Here I leave it to contributors to decide
     what Information might be most useful to readers in understanding
     what the chapter content/layout provides, although it might be that
     we could create some kind of boilerplate outline to be used.

I imagine that most people look at the guides for help with particular issues. 
From looking at the table of contents, they can see what is contained in each 
Thus, I am not sure that there is a need for more introductory information at 
the beginning of a chapter.

  * For the benefit of seriously color vision impaired people (like
    myself) I have changed the background and text color of the
    "Caution" heading. To you color vision perfect folks who find this
    change glaringly obnoxious, I say do what I have to do every day,
    "/live with it/".

I think the Caution heading looks fine.

by the way, when I initially downloaded the document from Nextcloud, the orange 
background of the Caution banner was not visible, so the yellow text was not 
readable. I just tried it again and the orange banner is visible. Perhaps this 
was a LOO glitch.

 * Jean's original comment proposed increasing the Numbering styles
    beyond 3 levels. Checking through previous guides I can find no
    evidence of where we have needed or used numbering levels beyond
    level 3. My proposal is not to add more levels.

I am not clear about what Jean was referring to when she indicated that list 
numbering should be revised.

Where possible, I have cut back on the numbering/bullet levels, as I think they 
are sometimes not needed and make the text look cluttered. I am not sure that 
there is a need to add more levels.

 * Jean's original comment proposed that we describe various levels for
    "Mixed Lists". Again, after checking through previous guides I can
    find no evidence of where we have needed or used mixed lists. My
    proposal is to not define any "Mixed Lists" styles.

I don’t have a sense of the need. We can always create a style if needed, but 
perhaps Jean knows of some instances where this would be helpful.

 * I have added a comment in reply to Jean's original comment regarding
    "Simple Lists" which should be self evident.

I am not clear about the need for this style. Why wouldn't simple bullets be 

 * Likewise, the "Text Body Intro" style might have some value if the
    the paragraph above or below spacing were substantially different
    from the default "Text Body" style. My proposal is to remove the style.

I don’t know what the Text Body_List_  Intro style would be used for, since 
there are already intro styles for numbered and bulleted lists.

Here I feel it necessary to make it absolutely clear that if any of the
above might seem that I am attacking Jean's work on this template, I am
definitely NOT. I have the greatest respect for Jean's many years of
contributing to this project and for creating the core of this template,
which I seriously doubt I could have done myself from scratch.

I know that some members of the Doc's Team are keen to give this
template's styles a "LO" or similar prefix, but I have opted to stay, as
much as possible, with default styles, because giving what are
essentially default styles new names does not automatically update the
styles used in a document the template is applied to, which in turn
requires more editing.

Would those of you having access to Nextcloud please take a look at the
draft template and discus this at the next docs meeting or post back to
the list if you think anything should be changed or done differently.

Thanks & Regards

To unsubscribe e-mail to: documentation+unsubscr...@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Reply via email to