Hi Cathy, Thanks, your comments and observations are much appreciated.
It's getting late here and I need a bit of time to accurately formulate my replies, so I will answer in the next 12-18 hours. Regards Dave On 13.11.2018 03:50, Cathy Crumbley wrote: > Hi Dave, > > Your revision of the template is quite helpful. Some of my thoughts > follow below. > > Cathy > > 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: >> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/81381 >> >> 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 reasons: > > 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 chapter. > 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 used? > > * 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 > Dave > > > -- To unsubscribe e-mail to: [email protected] 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
