Jim Balter wrote: > On 6/10/02 6:21 PM, Red Drag Diva wrote: > >> [-> .documentation] >> >> >> On 11 Jun 2002 00:28:27 GMT, >> DeMoN LaG <n@a> wrote: > > So all this about Mozilla not being intended to be used by end users > is stuff and nonsense. It isn't *targeted* to > end users, it isn't *marketed* to end users, there's no > *support* (from mozilla.org) for end users ... but there's > an expectation that end users will use it, and I daresay > that there's a desire and an intention that they use it. > Most importantly, it is intended that it be *usable* by end users.
But usable at the users's own risk. Lifeguard not on duty. I'm glad you cited the Guide to Mozilla, which makes it very clear that the intended audience is developers. My reading of the text leads me to a different conclusion than you, apparently. I interpret "general public end-user support" as meaning help. At a recent WinWriter's Online Help conference, for instance, I think it was William Horton (or someone of his stature in the technical writing discipline) persuasively argued that Help is the user's "portal" into the full gamut of a company's (=distributor's) help offerings. Traditionally, help writers and support individuals have been in different bureaucracies within companies, which has reinforced the notion that "help" and "support" are completely different things. But traditional help content really is the front-line of support for users. Good help reinforces customer satisfaction and the sense that the product is well-supported. Help Is Support. So when you say, as you do below, that a distributor "need add no more than marketing and support," I wholeheartedly agree, but I would argue that your statement means that it is incumbent upon distributors to develop their own help. --Steve > >> 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. > > > Of course; this really isn't a matter of opinion. Take to heart the > the text above: "The Mozilla product is freely redistributable as is > ...". AS IS. Mozilla should be, *as is*, a high quality polished > product to which a distributor need add no more than marketing > and support. >
