On Thu, 2002-02-28 at 10:18, Gabor Hojtsy wrote: > > > > Just to make this posting a little more "useful", here is a > suggestion. It > > > > is hard to ignore that the documentation has many typos and gross > writing > > > > mistakes. Especially the users' notes. It is not only ugly, it also > > > > prevents words from being detected by the search engine. Has anybody > ever > > > > thought of combing it all and applying some proofreading? There could > be a > > > > group handling a side project in charge of that. > > > > > > > > Best regards, > > > > Luciano Espirito Santo > > > > Santos - SP - Brasil > > > > > > Well, we do it from time to time, but not as a QA effort. > > > Maybe it would be nice to have two or three people with > > > "high quality" English knowledge to reread our English > > > texts... I know I am sometimes quite bad in grammar... > > > > We have no control in any real sense over the user notes. It's hard > > enough just deleting the useless ones, without having to edit the > > others. They are just that: 'user notes'--not anything we've done--and > > their content is the authors' own. > > I am not talking about the user notes, but the manual content. > Proofreading at least the grammar and text used in the manual > is kind of a Quality Assurrance. > > Goba
Sorry, I should have made clear that I was responding to the line in the original message which mentioned that the problem was especially evident in the user notes. I certainly agree with your point, Goba. :) -- Torben Wilson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.thebuttlesschaps.com http://www.hybrid17.com http://www.inflatableeye.com +1.604.709.0506
