Red Drag Diva wrote: > [-> .documentation] > > > On 11 Jun 2002 00:28:27 GMT, > DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote: > : Red Drag Diva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in > : news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 10 Jun 2002: > > :> This is not quite the right answer. A better one would be "yes, > :> the helpfile verges on worse that useless at the moment;
What helpfile are you referring to? The locally installed help content? And why is it "worse that useless"? an effort > :> is underway to make it good instead of bad. Work is under > :> discussion in n.p.m.documentation." 'Cos it is, it is and it is > :> ;-) > > : I agree the help system is attrocious. In what way is the help system "attrocious"? By the way, we've recently held usability tests of the Netscape help system and content, which is by and large the same as found in Mozilla (the help content in the Netscape version is more up-to-date). We did not encounter any users who contended that the help system is atrocious. What's the basis for your assertion? However, I don't see why a > : program that is designed only to be used by other developers and > : skinned/branded by distributors *needs* a major help file. That has been the attitude of mozilla.org staff from way back---the Mozilla app does not need help content, though the help viewer is an open-source contribution to the overall app. Distributors can use the help system if they want or discard it. (I gave a talk about documentation at one of the early Mozilla developer conferences, before the help system was even in the app, and there was certainly eagerness among developers to have the help system as part of the Moz open-source effort, but no one wanted the help content in particular.) Help content is a form of support. Distributors are obligated to provide their own form of support. Open-source efforts are often distinguished from their proprietary versions in that the latter have documentation and support. sendmail, for example, has 1000+ pages of documentation from Sendmail, Inc., whereas the open-source version of the software does not have that level of documentation. Part of the appeal of Red Hat's version of Linux is that it comes with documentation. And so on. > > > Designed? Intended. Wishfully thought, maybe. You could file a bug to have > the help file removed on these grounds ... > > I expect that it is anticipated the doc will be under a suitable license as > well, so be a suitable starting point for the vendors. A program without > doc is like the Mozilla source code without mozilla.org. It feels to me > like part of getting the whole thing right. IMO. There are docs and then there are docs. Basic setup and installation docs I would expect for a program. But comprehensive, context-sensitive, task-based, instructional on-screen help is not somehow intrinsic to all programs. Arguing that help is integral to a program is a stretch. Most of us have the expectation that we'll get help along with a program, but we're used to the proprietary versions of software. --Steve > > I think it's the right thing for a program to carry decent documentation, > particularly with an interface as (hmm) disjoint as Mozilla's. I'd be > interested to hear why you think it's a bad idea (and in what ways it's a > bad idea) in more detail. Particularly as I'm one of those who is poking > his head up to work on said help file ... Convince me I'm wrong :-) > >
