On Mon, 28 Aug 2006, Joachim Noreiko wrote: > Here is what I suggest should happen instead: > > 1. You currently have a list of suggested new games. I > image you'll be making a shortlist for the survey > fairly soon and the developers of these will be > contacted. > 2. The developers of these games write to the docs > list, saying something like this: > "Hi. My game is being considered for GNOME. Please > could you take a look at the docs I have / help me > write a manual from scratch." > 3. I strongly doubt that any of the games under > consideration would *completely* rewrite their UI > between now and freeze. > Most devs would have at least a vague idea of a > roadmap, and could say to us "features a b and c will > change, but the rest is stable". > EVEN with an app due for a complete UI change, we'd be > able to help them get a user manual template into > their CVS, and add to it an introduction and overview > of the rules. > With existing manuals, we can convert what's already > there to docbook, and help them get into shape for GDP > style. Looking at the manual for Hearts for example, > http://www.jejik.com/hearts/users/, it falls into the > trap of doing a listing all the menus instead of > focussing on tasks the user wants to accomplish.
All in all I think your suggestions sounds like a good idea. Giving the GDP more time to prepare the documentation is important. I will discuss a time-line for inclusion of the new game with the other gnome-games developers, and get back to the GDP with more info. If the new game would be _decided_ when GNOME 2.17.4 (string announcement period) is released, then there would be enough time for the GDP to bring the docs up to GNOME standards, right? - Andreas _______________________________________________ gnome-doc-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-doc-list
