On 01/11/2018 10:31 PM, Andrew David Wong wrote:
> Hash: SHA512
> On 2018-01-11 14:41, Chris Laprise wrote:
>> At least no section repetition for the scripts should be necessary. But
>> doing this for the dialogs still adds a lot to an already long doc.
> Is it bad for a doc to be long when it's immediately obvious which
> half you can ignore because it's not the version you're using?

Not necessarily for a reader, except in the case where the instructions
are long to begin with and the reader happens to scroll into the section
for a different version... without a floating page element that always
keeps the heading visible, the reader might inadvertently mix directions
from the two version-sections.

>> I feel that, apart from making some docs look deceptively long and less
>> readable, the most significant downside to melding 3.x/4.x instructions
>> together would be to discourage contributions from users. It makes the
>> thought of every potential edit seem like a slog through extra markdown,
>> and many will think "I don't have time to install 3.2 to write up that
>> version".
> I don't understand. Why would this be the case? If you want to make a
> small edit that pertains only to 4.0, you can simply make that small
> edit in the 4.0 section, or add such a section if one doesn't yet
> exist, which would only be a few extra characters. A 4.0 user who
> wants to add some true fact about 4.0 to the docs doesn't even have to
> think about 3.2, much less install it.

If they don't have to think about 3.2, that's fine. But I'd expect
queries/requests for "3.2 version" would appear in the PRs about some
new fixes, info or approaches the users are trying to introduce into the

Making an edit "that pertains only to 4.0" isn't going to be the mental
context of the user-contributor in most cases. They will just have new
info that they are unsure whether it applies to 3.2 (or if it does,
how). And I'm sure even advanced users will be feeling the uncertainty
and friction before long.

Tom Zander makes some good points, too.

OTOH, I don't want to belabor the issue -- and I'm far from certain
anyway, this is about psychology.


Chris Laprise, tas...@posteo.net
PGP: BEE2 20C5 356E 764A 73EB  4AB3 1DC4 D106 F07F 1886

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"qubes-users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to qubes-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to qubes-users@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to