On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 04:29:20PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote: > On November 1, 2002 04:02 pm, Andreas Mohr wrote: > > I agree that using a static web page for the FAQ part instead could > > probably be better - but for the troubleshooting content ?? > > The troubleshooting content is meant to be a step-by-step problem solver > > area (and it is, to some extent). Now tell me how you'd implement the > > same thing easily with an ordinary web page, without losing flexibility > > for very quick changes/reordering ?? > > Well, for one thing, this should not be in the FAQ, but a separate > troubleshooting section. Second, I *know* I don't want to see the > FOM as a user. It's just bad. Beyond words! :) I don't understand > why you want this very quick changes/reordering flexibility. It > just seems we're trying to fix the wrong problem. We don't need a > tool to help us add hundred of pages, because nobody will bother > to read them. We need to think how we can present the information > in a few pages. Tops. If not, we are better off spending the time > fixing the problems, rather than documenting workarounds on > hundreds of pages. The largest part of the FOM *is* the troubleshooting section. The FAQ is only a small part of the FOM that has been added later for maintenance convenience of the FAQ.
Good luck implementing it in a different way. I'm outta that one for now, especially given that spending my time on non-Wine things currently probably is a wise thing to do. About the hundreds of pages: What's so problematic with navigating a directory structure that gets more and more specific about your problem until you (hopefully) hit the specific answer to your question ? That'd all get lost with your suggested change. Sometimes I've got the impression that I'm partly fighting the "KISS dumb-it-down-until-there-is-plain-nothing-left-to-annoy-the-helpless-user- with-its-bewildering-size-and-information-overload syndrome". -- Andreas Mohr Stauferstr. 6, D-71272 Renningen, Germany Tel. +49 7159 800604 http://mohr.de.tt
