Hello Steve,

Done!

> 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.
>
> I have written the code and generating new ones will take a few minutes
only, it just a matter of choice also I have moved them to additional
section.

> 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.
>
> I think opening in a new tab is better but as far as I know we need to
make that adjustment on Admin Home -> Editing and Plugins, General Settings
Tab, "External links and images" section. Which will open all external
links in the new window.

> 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.
>
I will send some more pages soon.

>
> 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
>

-- 
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

Reply via email to