Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

OK, so to be clear, you are proposing replacing Jekyll with Gitbook. It looked to me that Gitbook doesn't have as smooth a publishing mechanism. I'll go with whatever the majority wants to do, but I really just want to focus on content instead of debating the merits of alternatives to Gitbook.

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 11:56 PM, Alex Harui wrote: > I'm still confused. I think we agreed to use GH Pages. AFAICT, GH Pages > uses Jekyll and Markdown. Jekyll is a general purpose static website generator. Gitbook is built specifically for documentation. >

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

Yes we are agreed to use GH pages. I'm glad that is working with google, but let's move forward with Jekyll. We have auto publications once we push it. It is very convenient! Thanks, Piotr 2018-01-29 8:56 GMT+01:00 Alex Harui : > I'm still confused. I think we agreed

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

I'm still confused. I think we agreed to use GH Pages. AFAICT, GH Pages uses Jekyll and Markdown. Jekyll expects a certain layout like templates in a _layout folder. I have put a template in there. I don't understand using a different production system that doesn't use Jekyll and its way of

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

This does not use the Jekyll workflow. This uses the .md files directly. Thanks, Om On Jan 28, 2018 10:57 PM, "Alex Harui" wrote: I don’t get it. There is a Jekyll template in our repo. The link I just clicked on did not appear to use it. -Alex On 1/28/18, 4:41

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

I don’t get it. There is a Jekyll template in our repo. The link I just clicked on did not appear to use it. -Alex On 1/28/18, 4:41 AM, "Andrew Wetmore" wrote: >Yeah...the one thing it does not have is an expanding-collapsing ToC. The >scrolling is not bad, but the

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

Yeah...the one thing it does not have is an expanding-collapsing ToC. The scrolling is not bad, but the intimidation effect of endless topic titles can be large. For me that is a usability negative...but not a deal-killer. On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 7:35 AM, Gabe Harbs wrote:

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

BTW: That site has 3 levels in the table of contents: https://redux.js.org/docs/recipes/reducers/PrerequisiteConcepts.html > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:20 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > > Here is a very

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

I’d say “go for it”! > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:20 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > > Here is a very good example of what the end product would look like: > https://redux.js.org/ > > Thanks, > Om > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:14 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

Here is a very good example of what the end product would look like: https://redux.js.org/ Thanks, Om On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:14 AM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > > > On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Harbs wrote: > >> Is this an additional

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

On Sun, Jan 28, 2018 at 3:13 AM, Gabe Harbs wrote: > Is this an additional way of viewing the content or a replacement for the > Jenkyll-produced site? > > If it’s the former, I can’t see any reason why not. > It's an additional way. It uses the .md files from the github

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

Is this an additional way of viewing the content or a replacement for the Jenkyll-produced site? If it’s the former, I can’t see any reason why not. Harbs > On Jan 28, 2018, at 1:09 PM, OmPrakash Muppirala wrote: > > I've been playing around with the tool: GitBook

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

I've been playing around with the tool: GitBook [www.gitbooks.io] I was able to connect my personal fork of the royale-docs to my gitbooks.io account. This way, all my .md files are automatically available for Docs creation. Here is an example I created in a few minutes:

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

If the ToC accordions properly and we need three levels, I do not see why three levels would cause more confusion than two levels. If this is a resource providing information people are going to need to use Royale, and if that information is not readily available elsewhere, then we should make the

Re: Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

Hi Alex, for TOC. One think that's very important to me: Please only *two levels* in TOC. For simplicity and clarity. Like the demo page I did. It's the standard right now and a three level only created confusion. Again see Angular and React sites to match what they did and take it as a

Royale Doc Table-of-Contents UX (was Re: Royale Documentation Page Layout Proposal)

Breaking out a separate thread on this... Thinking about this some more, I think I can generate an interactive control with Jekyll, but I don't know how to make it retain state. I think that might require cookies and/or frames. For example, let's say the TOC looked like: Welcome --High Level