Alberto Salvia Novella:
I would like you to have a look at those, one by the other, and tell
me which one do you prefer and why. Also, if this seems good to you,
to tell what you would change from that chosen one.
Alberto Salvia Novella:
Here you have the pages:
-
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Fixable>
-
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage/Workable>
Because:
* Nearly everyone I asked said they preferred the version with images.
* These people insisted unison that images made them wanting to engage
with the project, and the absence of those not doing so.
* This includes the Ubuntu Documentation team members.
* The points made against using images were of less priority than
engagement and ease of use.
* Using images isn't necessary incompatible with limited Internet
resources and plain text readability when properly done.
I'm using visuals in all the content I'm creating.
On the other hand, I'm not pushing this into the bug documentation right
now; but rather I'm building on the go a prototype of a bug triaging
system
<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/One%20Hundred%20Papercuts/Work-flow/Triage> in
the One Hundred Papercuts project, which basically is the same we have
now but with:
* Information broken into the smallest parts.
* Visuals.
* Redaction understandable by everyone.
The aim is to provide tools for fixing bugs not only for interested
developers, but to any person that uses Ubuntu. Ideally this would mean
that users will be willing and capable of fully triaging their bugs
themselves, what probably would have the biggest impact in software
quality at this moment.
Thank you.
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
[email protected]
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
