discuss: LDP needed tasks
Subject:
Re: LDP needed tasks
From:
####@####.####
Date:
5 Feb 2016 16:36:48 +0000
Message-Id: <20160204145008.76c0cc1a@ulgy_thing>
On Wed, 27 Jan 2016 12:04:59 Martin A. Brown wrote:
<snip>
> LDP Needs
> ---------
>
> * Review coordination: One of the biggest needs we will have is
> reviewers and review coordination.
>
> This role is a key role for our volunteer organization and the
> success of the organization can be, in large measure, attributed
> to the regular work of a person or a small group of people to
> handle this.
>
> This would require a small group (or even one person) who would
> drum the bushes to find reviewers for content and technical and
> then follow-through so that authors were receiving feedback.
>
> It is precisely the review and review coordination function of
> this volunteer group that drives the value into our
> documentation.
>
> Task deliverable: Presence and communication!
I've been hoping to produce something for a while now, but I don't know
quite enough yet IMHO.
I'd be happy to review (I'm not fast though), I tend to have high
expectations though (too much documentation is incomplete), so please
don't ask unless you want the book thrown at you (and ask off list since
I don't want to spam it).
> * Acceptable formats: We might consider accepting alternate input
> formats.
>
> A volunteer could figure out the advantages and disadvantages of
> our accepting alternate input formats.
>
> We have heard from many would-be authors, volunteers and others
> that we should support other documentation formats. The
> richness of the tools available to us today should allow us to
> take alternate single-source inputs. If the documentation
> format can (in an automatable way) produce text, PDF, HTML
> (single, at least; chunked would be nice), then we could
> consider it.
>
> Task deliverable: Collect suggestions (from mailing list,
> history) for accepted formats and demonstrate conversions to LDP
> output formats.
>
> Task size: Small(-ish).
Where LDP output formats are?
<snip>
> * Website overhaul: We could use a public face refresh.
>
> The website could use a refresh--in particular, I'd think that
> we could use some of the UX ideas of the last decade to apply to
> the layout.
I'm unfamiliar with the "UX ideas".
What are you thinking of exactly?
> For example, I might be a user looking for a
> particular document, a current LDP reviewer, an new author
> hoping to submit or an existing author. I think it could be
> easier for each of these possible LDP users to find what s/he is
> looking for.
>
> Task deliverable: New look and/or website.
>
> Size: Medium to Large.
Now we need to find out what we like best for the look, feel, and layout.
Do you prefer small and simple, or big and eye candy?
There are plenty of CMS suites out there. I think if you want something
more then ultra-simple that you might use one of those.
Barrowing from the first issue (see above) Maybe add a blog to discus doc
changes, this would allow user feed back/thoughts and QA without signing
up to the mailing list. We might even improve our docs by seeing what the
users are most confused about which will inevitably change over time.
>
> * HTML CSS file: Create to provide consistent look of website and
> docs.
> To improve consistency of presentation between the website and
> the documentation we publish there, it would be great to have a
> CSS file to be imported by the generated HTML.
>
> Size: Small?
<snip>
I recommend against as some doc formats don't use css and are not sgml
derivatives. As for the main site, I'd KISS, so that users could
implement their own CSS (for example via userstyles.org). Why you ask,
the great thing about Linux is that you can hack it. We should encourage
that in our designs.
Sincerely, David
