Hi Ronnie,
Thanks for your feedback.
I don't think there's any need to change the wording throughout to
reflect the name "arccosine". I just thought it would be worth
mentioning in the Summary sub-section that "inverse trigonometric
cosine" and "arccosine", and maybe even "arccos", are just different
names for the same thing.
With regards to the GIF, I'm quite happy with the animated version. My
motivation for raising the comment was a concern that there might be
more effort involved for you to create the animated GIF compared to the
static equivalent. As long as it isn't too onerous for you, that's fine.
One further general point for discussion, the link to ODF standard
currently takes the user off our wiki. Should we consider opening the
ODF page in a new browser window?
I'm looking forward to reviewing some more.
Regards,
Steve
------ Original Message ------
From: "GANDHI RONNIE" <[email protected]>
To: "Steve (GMail)" <[email protected]>
Cc: "Documentation Team" <[email protected]>
Sent: 02/09/2020 12:14:51
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [libreoffice-documentation] Please give your
feedback for this document edit
Hello Steve,
Thanks for your comments.
As Olivier commented, this update is what we hoped for.
A few further comments for you to consider:
SUMMARY SUB-SECTION
Thats a good suggestion.Done!
1. Should the summary state that this function calculates the
“principal value”, which is an accepted term I believe.
If we see Microsoft's description they have used arccosine everywhere
should we also shift to it. I actually continued what already exists
but we can consider. What do you say?
2. Similarly, would it be worth mentioning “arc cosine” as well as
“inverse trigonometric cosine”.
ARGUMENTS SUB-SECTION
Done!
1. Since the Syntax sub-section gives the argument name as Number,
I
would suggest that the singular form is used in this subsection too.
2. A very minor point, but is it worth putting a plus sign before
“1”?
3. I would be wary about using the acronym NaN which may not be
familiar to some of our users. Perhaps replace with the more specific
“an invalid numeric value (#NUM!) error”.
Actually I should apologise as I somehow skipped this line and actually
it doesn't make any sense to me as well. Actually I found that this
line is coming from the description section of this
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/Reference/Global_Objects/Math/acos#:~:text=acos()%20method%20returns%20a,Math%20is%20not%20a%20constructor).
webpage but it makes little sense for our users here to be added hence
I have removed it.
4. Apologies but I do not know what the last sentence really means
(“Because ACOS is a static method of Math, you always use it as
Math”).
Thanks
EXAMPLES SUB-SECTION
1. I think the format looks great.
Done
2. In description for third and fourth examples, radian and degree
should both be plural.
3. In description for fourth example, insert “by” before 180/PI().
4. In description for fifth example, again I would not bother with
the NaN acronym. So maybe change “error (NaN)” to “an error”. Also I
suspect you could safely delete “which is between -1 and 1” as it is
already been stated.
About this as I earlier mentioned we don't aim at creating such gifs
for all purposes but it will be fine for some trigonometric and
statistical the distributions ones. Otherwise if you see I have edited
ABS function as well but I didn't care about adding a gif or even an
image there. Also Olivier seem to like this one here.
5. A point for discussion – is the dynamic GIF appropriate for
functions like this or is animation unnecessary for such a simple
function? Would a static GIF convey the necessary information
adequately?
6. Another point for discussion – as the GIF covers the whole of
the
function and isn’t really an example, would it be more appropriately
placed in the Additional details sub-section?
It did. Thanks
I hope these thoughts help. And please keep up the good work!
One thing I would like to add is that this was the first one hence I
took reviews to avoid getting in a situation where I am working 4-5
days with different minds but now since we are on the right track as we
discussed in the meeting I'll send 20-30 function pages for review in
the weekend of your convenience.
Regards,
Ronnie
--
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
