HTML versions of the Guides

You've hit in an important point Nino. The doc team does not have the
manpower available to create and maintain independent documentation
streams. HTML is a fine idea, but not as a leading/primary format.
If there is a need for HTML, then do it as an output/publishing format
from the ODT sources.

Clayton

I agree with ODF formats for our documentation and then other versions
as needed latter. When they are made, when can state the where
saved/exported for the LO, plugging some of the other capabilities of
LO.

I would not use htiml unless someone cleans up the code. Most program
generated html I have seen is very difficult to follow, debug, and
maintain without someone cleaning it up. Ofteh I have found myself
redoing the pages with hand coding only.

________________________________
From: planas <jslozier@gmail.com>
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 16:16:48
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides

On Thu, 2011-06-23 at 04:27 -0400, Marc Paré wrote:

Le 2011-06-23 02:30, David Nelson a écrit :
> Hi,
>
> My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a
> publication of the user-ready version in PDF.
>
> I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea.
>
> --
> David Nelson
>
I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and
the .pdf only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have
the best office suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I
would even go as far as not publishing any .pdf versions. People needing
documentation will have LibreOffice to read the ODF files. I would only
supply .pdf files if it involved anything with the installation of
LibreOffice.

Cheers

Marc

--
Marc Paré
http://www.parEntreprise.com

I agree with ODF formats for our documentation and then other versions
as needed latter. When they are made, when can state the where
saved/exported for the LO, plugging some of the other capabilities of
LO.

I would not use htiml unless someone cleans up the code. Most program
generated html I have seen is very difficult to follow, debug, and
maintain without someone cleaning it up. Ofteh I have found myself
redoing the pages with hand coding only.

Jay Lozier
jslozier@gmail.com

Hi :slight_smile:
+1
Except that i get over-excited about allowing people access easily so i fall
into rants about needing pdf too lol. Sorry about that Marc! I know Adobe and
MS both achieved market dominance partly through non-compliance but since they
achieved domination it's difficult to disrupt that. I think we have to pick
fights we can win first.

Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

Hi

Hi :slight_smile:
Most places that have any kind of leaflet, posters or documentation to download
want to have some control over the way it looks. Sadly there is not an adequate
Open Document Format so people use PDF. Since PDF is so widely used it forces
everyone to use it. I don't think we can make a stand against that right now.
We have to use PDF or else marginalise ourselves.

Most places that do have pdfs to download also have a button to the Adobe site
to download their latest reader (for free) in case people can't read pdfs even
though that is desperately unlikely. I think we should have a similar button
but perhaps we could choose someone other than Adobe?

I think we should also follow that lead and have a button leading people to a
stable ODT reader, not our 3.4.x releases!
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

________________________________
From: Marc Paré <marc@marcpare.com>
To: documentation@global.libreoffice.org
Sent: Thu, 23 June, 2011 9:27:00
Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] HTML versions of the Guides

> Hi,
>
> My 2 cents would be that the best format for guides is .odt, plus a
> publication of the user-ready version in PDF.
>
> I don't think an HTML version would really be a useful idea.
>
> --
> David Nelson
>
I will chime in as well. I would rather see the ODF versions first and the .pdf
only if needed. We are, after all, telling people that we have the best office
suite on earth, so let's prove it! It does work!. I would even go as far as not
publishing any .pdf versions. People needing documentation will have LibreOffice
to read the ODF files. I would only supply .pdf files if it involved anything
with the installation of LibreOffice.

Cheers

Marc

-- Marc Paré
http://www.parEntreprise.com

-- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+help@global.libreoffice.org
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

True most people are conditioned to look a pdf file. But one save LO
documents with a password which maintains version/document control. This
feature is (also in MSO) is rarely used, I think because most people are
not aware of it. The Acrobat Reader is a marketing tool for Adobe to
make pdf popular and improve sales of the Acrobat. There are currently
several free readers for Linux and Windows. Some are considered better
than Reader itself. Maybe instead of link to Adobe we have a link, if
possible, to a FOSS pdf reader. People can still read the pdf and we
promote some sister projects.

What some have done to get around needing Acrobat to prepare pdf's is
use a suite like LO that can export the document as a pdf. Any pdf
generated we need can be done in LO and we state that on the page. Any
time we revise the document we do it using LO. I have been aware of this
feature in OOo/SO for many years when MSO did not have it.

Hi

> So my statement would be:
> Stay with ODF as master (as long as there is not a more conveniant
> solution) and try to offer PDF /and/ HTML in addition. Ideally, the PDF
> and HTML conversion should be done as automatically as possible, so no
> need for additional manpower.

You've hit in an important point Nino. The doc team does not have the
manpower available to create and maintain independent documentation
streams. HTML is a fine idea, but not as a leading/primary format.
If there is a need for HTML, then do it as an output/publishing format
from the ODT sources.

Clayton

Generation of pdf is easy for LO, under FILE >> Export as PDF in Writer
and you have your pdf. I would do this after the document has been
finalized for release. We can plug this feature, saying something "pdf
files where generated using LO ...." This will tell people the can
generate a pdf file for LO without having to prep it for import into
Acrobat or use Acrobat to generate the document.

When friends ask about getting Acrobat, I tell them to use the export
feature in LO/OOo instead and save the money. The feature has been OOo
for several years and is one of the reasons I would use OOo and now LO.

An Adobe Acrobat Professional PDF can be generated/converted from another PDF (say, a PDF ported from an ODT file) so as to allow the Comment and Review (aka Comment and Analysis) functionality for any user with the ubiquitous Adobe Reader. Then, any reader (using Adobe Reader) of that enabled PDF can easily make and save any comments, notes, highlighting, etc. directly to the enabled PDF for his own use. A PDF not so enabled cannot be so readily "edited" by everyday, ordinary readers.

Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality. It only takes a few extra seconds to convert a PDF by Acrobat Professional.

It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real time and effort...

Gary

Hi Gary,

Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by
Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that
OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality.

What purpose do you want this functionality for?

...
It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review
function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real
time and effort...

But for what purpose?

Nino

DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward.

In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities.

Gary

The big hole in that idea is that Adobe Acrobat Professional is a
Windows/MAC-only application that costs $449 US per license. That
leaves out those of us who use Linux... and the team members that
cannot afford that rather high license cost.

It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions,
it will probably remain a nice-to-have.

C.

Hi :slight_smile:

Lol. Ok, so if anyone has time then it can be done but the ODTs have that sort
of functionality anyway and it slightly defeats the purpose of providing a pdf.
A nice layer of extra icing if anyone has time :slight_smile:
Regards from
Tom :slight_smile:

It costs the users absolutely NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, as long as any version of Adobe Reader that was released within the past several years is used for reading the Acrobat-enabled PDFs.

All that is required is just ONE LO PERSON with Adobe Acrobat Professional to convert any PDF, a task that takes merely a few seconds per PDF. BTW, this Adobe functionality is not really new, as it has been around for a number of years already.

Public mention could be made that the PDFs were so enabled so that anybody desiring to mark them up could readily do so. Most of my clients readily use converted PDFs for their copyediting accepting/rejecting sessions--to the point that most prefer using edit tracking on PDFs instead of using the source DOC documents, once they became aware of that functionality.

Gary

Does anyone know what pdf functionality LO exports have? I have never
tested it myself, no interest until now.

If they have the desire functionality then there is no reason to use
Acrobat, just export from LO. Personally I do not highlight books or
e-texts. For e-texts I use formatting to highlight important items for
the reader. If something you can using formating in the original to draw
the readers/users attention to it. If I need to edit a pdf file, I can
use pdf Edit in Linux and I assume there are Windows/Mac equivalents.

It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions,
it will probably remain a nice-to-have.

It costs the users absolutely NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, as long as any
version of Adobe Reader that was released within the past several years is
used for reading the Acrobat-enabled PDFs.

Gary, I wasn't referring to users needing the software to read the
PDF. I am fully aware that it's for producing the PDFs, not reading.
I've been using PDF readers and PDF generation tools for more years
than I'd like to admit :stuck_out_tongue:

All that is required is just ONE LO PERSON with Adobe Acrobat Professional
to convert any PDF, a task that takes merely a few seconds per PDF. BTW,
this Adobe functionality is not really new, as it has been around for a
number of years already.

OK, who gets to cough up $450 for a license? i know I certainly
cannot (I'd have a double whammy of the Acrobat license plus a Windows
license), and I would not presume to request any member of the team to
do so. If you personally have a license, then that's fine.. what
happens if you decide you're not working on LO docs anymore due to
other obligations? Or you're busy with your business clients during
one publish cycle and can't take care of that final production step?

My point was simple... the doc team needs to carefully consider any
process tools or other suggestions that will cost money. Are they
necessary? Is the gain something in demand from the audience or a neat
feature that 6 people might use? Does the team gain enough to justify
the cost? Does this take into account the team members using Linux?

C.

I never mentioned that any reader of LO PDFs would need to use Acrobat.

Only one person at LO docs needs to employ Acrobat Professional--a brain-dead, simple, less-than-a-minute task--to enable any future users to employ Comment and Review on their PDFs.

It's really that difficult a concept. It imparts useful functionality, even though you might not ever use it. Millions do... on their printed documents, including books and memos.

Gary

> Hi Gary,
>
>> Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by
>> Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that
>> OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality.
>
> What purpose do you want this functionality for?
>
>> ...
>> It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review
>> function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real
>> time and effort...
>
> But for what purpose?
>
> Nino

DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing
typically done by millions of students and others over the past few
decades on their printed material and books by (usually
yellow-colored) magic markers.

Sorry, Gary, for my ignorance :wink:

I myself have never had the idea to use PDF and highlight something
therein, so I just did not know / could not imagine that this is done by
so many people today. I remember how happy we have been some decades ago
when PDF was "invented" and everybody could read a document with the
same layout all over the world. So I just did not recognize the
interactive capabilities of PDF today.

That highlighting functionality can
also be done now electronically on PDFs (as it is commonly done on
such converted PDFs) and even carried over to printed hard copy, if
users so desire to print them out afterward.

In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users
could also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other
capabilities.

From these facts I'd say: There is a grain of truth in your arguments
:wink:

But - however - I'd still say, if "we" provide a User Manual, then we do
this for one reason: to enable more users to use our software in a
better way. So primary goal is to attract/ enable/ empower /educate
software users. If some of them really want to highlight the manual or
enter comments, ok, maybe. But this is too far from the original purpose
in my humble eyes. So it might be good to offer it as a service from
someone who believes it makes the difference. But not for "us", who are
offering primarily the "core services". Just like many Extensions are
built by "external" persons. However, if they really provide a
substantial surplus, then people will love them and call for integration
into core. So the way to go is, at least for the moment, find someone to
implement the functionality, offer it publicly, and wait :slight_smile:

Nino

Not trying to be terribly offensive, but you are carrying on like a Luddite...

I have Acrobat Pro, and I feel certain that other LO contributors do likewise.

Gary

You can easily try it out. Try the Adobe website. They probably have such enabled PDFs for users to practice on.

Otherwise, email me, and I will send you as an attachment an enabled Writer Guide PDF.

Gary

Gary

>
>>>>> Therefore, I suggest that every OOo/LO PDF file be so converted by
>>>>> Adobe Acrobat Professional afterward, prior to release so that
>>>>> OOo/LO users will have that extra functionality.
>>>> What purpose do you want this functionality for?
>>>>
>>>>> ...
>>>>> It seems foolish not to so enable them for the Comment and Review
>>>>> function, considering its ease to do so with no added cost or real
>>>>> time and effort...
>>>> But for what purpose?
>>>>
>>>> Nino
>>> DUH! For any users wanting to add any highlighting and such--a thing
>>> typically done by millions of students and others over the past few decades
>>> on their printed material and books by (usually yellow-colored) magic
>>> markers. That highlighting functionality can also be done now electronically
>>> on PDFs (as it is commonly done on such converted PDFs) and even carried
>>> over to printed hard copy, if users so desire to print them out afterward.
>>>
>>> In addition to highlighting, editorial comments and the like by users could
>>> also be added directly to the PDF documents, among other capabilities.
>> The big hole in that idea is that Adobe Acrobat Professional is a
>> Windows/MAC-only application that costs $449 US per license. That
>> leaves out those of us who use Linux... and the team members that
>> cannot afford that rather high license cost.
>>
>> It may be a nice-to-have feature, but due to cost and OS restrictions,
>> it will probably remain a nice-to-have.
>>
>> C.
>>
> Does anyone know what pdf functionality LO exports have? I have never
> tested it myself, no interest until now.
>
> If they have the desire functionality then there is no reason to use
> Acrobat, just export from LO. Personally I do not highlight books or
> e-texts. For e-texts I use formatting to highlight important items for
> the reader. If something you can using formating in the original to draw
> the readers/users attention to it. If I need to edit a pdf file, I can
> use pdf Edit in Linux and I assume there are Windows/Mac equivalents.

I never mentioned that any reader of LO PDFs would need to use Acrobat.

Only one person at LO docs needs to employ Acrobat Professional--a
brain-dead, simple, less-than-a-minute task--to enable any future users
to employ Comment and Review on their PDFs.

It's really that difficult a concept. It imparts useful functionality,
even though you might not ever use it. Millions do... on their printed
documents, including books and memos.

Gary

--

Gary Schnabl
Southwest Detroit, two miles NORTH! of Canada--Windsor, that is...

Technical Editor forum <http://TechnicalEditor.LivernoisYard.com/phpBB3/>

You are missing the point - I do not need Acrobat to generate a pdf
file. You can do it easily in LO. The pdf will open in Reader with no
problems. I just did it, accepting the default settings since was not
sure what all the settings did. Actually this was the first time I had
seen these settings and I suspect they setting for Reader/Acrobat. I
would not be surprised it you picked the correct settings you would get
the behavior you wanted.

Thanks for the offer :slight_smile:

However, this will have to wait a bit because at the moment my brain is
too full that I can't think about even more things to busy myself with.

Nino

Having the Review and Comment functionality on a PDF (to be done with Adobe Reader) must be first imparted by Acrobat Pro to that file. Trust me...

Gary