[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template
- Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template
- From: Dave Barton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2018 18:10:39 +0000
- To: email@example.com
Thanks, your comments and observations are much appreciated.
It's getting late here and I need a bit of time to accurately formulate
my replies, so I will answer in the next 12-18 hours.
On 13.11.2018 03:50, Cathy Crumbley wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Your revision of the template is quite helpful. Some of my thoughts
> follow below.
> On 11/5/2018 4:55 PM, Dave Barton wrote:
>> Another "little" LO Documentation task I set for myself over the weekend
>> was to draft a proposal for a template for the 6.x series guides, which
>> I have now completed and uploaded to:
>> Basically my draft is only an adaptation of Jean's original LO6.0
>> template. My draft is liberally scattered with comments, some in
>> response to Jean's original comments.
>> So what changes are proposed? The main points are:
>> * The question of image anchoring within a frame remains open. It may
>> be that we have a need for 2 different anchors for electronically
>> published chapters/guides and another for (Lulu) paper printed
> We should agree on how to handle this. I suggest talking about this
>> * Wherever possible I have used "Document Properties" and other
>> to automate the updating of documents.
>> * In 2 of Jean's original comments, she makes valid
>> recommendations to
>> have additional character styles (LOMenu Path and LOKeystroke) for
>> the possible requirement of style changes in future guides. I
>> propose removing these additional styles because our documentation
>> revision time frame does not really justify these extra styles and
>> they only serve to complicate guide style formatting and confuse
>> contributors as to when and which style to use. For a little
>> simplification, I am proposing these character styles be removed
>> the identical default "*Strong Emphasis*" and "/Emphasis/"
>> styles be
>> used instead.
> I wonder about eliminating the Keystroke and MenuPath styles. This is
> for two reasons:
> 1. While you are concerned about adding those styles, the guides are
> already using them. My understanding is that AltSearch does not find
> character styles, so changing those styles could be time consuming.
> 2. As I believe Jean has mentioned, eliminating these two character
> styles (by replacing them with Emphasis and Strong Emphasis, which
> it sounds like have the same properties) prevents them from being
> used in a future redesign.
> Perhaps I don't understand well enough why you propose eliminating
> these styles. Do you see clear benefits to reducing the number of styles?
>> * Our current guides give little information to the reader about the
>> content/layout of the chapter/guide, So I have inserted a new
>> section, which includes macOS/other OS key equivalents, moving it
>> fro the "Copyright" page. Here I leave it to contributors to decide
>> what Information might be most useful to readers in understanding
>> what the chapter content/layout provides, although it might be that
>> we could create some kind of boilerplate outline to be used.
> I imagine that most people look at the guides for help with particular
> issues. From looking at the table of contents, they can see what is
> contained in each chapter.
> Thus, I am not sure that there is a need for more introductory
> information at the beginning of a chapter.
> * For the benefit of seriously color vision impaired people (like
> myself) I have changed the background and text color of the
> "Caution" heading. To you color vision perfect folks who find this
> change glaringly obnoxious, I say do what I have to do every day,
> "/live with it/".
> I think the Caution heading looks fine.
> by the way, when I initially downloaded the document from Nextcloud,
> the orange background of the Caution banner was not visible, so the
> yellow text was not readable. I just tried it again and the orange
> banner is visible. Perhaps this was a LOO glitch.
> * Jean's original comment proposed increasing the Numbering styles
> beyond 3 levels. Checking through previous guides I can find no
> evidence of where we have needed or used numbering levels beyond
> level 3. My proposal is not to add more levels.
> I am not clear about what Jean was referring to when she indicated
> that list numbering should be revised.
> Where possible, I have cut back on the numbering/bullet levels, as I
> think they are sometimes not needed and make the text look cluttered.
> I am not sure that there is a need to add more levels.
> * Jean's original comment proposed that we describe various levels for
> "Mixed Lists". Again, after checking through previous guides I can
> find no evidence of where we have needed or used mixed lists. My
> proposal is to not define any "Mixed Lists" styles.
> I don’t have a sense of the need. We can always create a style if
> needed, but perhaps Jean knows of some instances where this would be
> * I have added a comment in reply to Jean's original comment regarding
> "Simple Lists" which should be self evident.
> I am not clear about the need for this style. Why wouldn't simple
> bullets be used?
> * Likewise, the "Text Body Intro" style might have some value if the
> the paragraph above or below spacing were substantially different
> from the default "Text Body" style. My proposal is to remove the
> I don’t know what the Text Body_List_ Intro style would be used for,
> since there are already intro styles for numbered and bulleted lists.
> Here I feel it necessary to make it absolutely clear that if any of the
> above might seem that I am attacking Jean's work on this template, I am
> definitely NOT. I have the greatest respect for Jean's many years of
> contributing to this project and for creating the core of this template,
> which I seriously doubt I could have done myself from scratch.
> I know that some members of the Doc's Team are keen to give this
> template's styles a "LO" or similar prefix, but I have opted to stay, as
> much as possible, with default styles, because giving what are
> essentially default styles new names does not automatically update the
> styles used in a document the template is applied to, which in turn
> requires more editing.
> Would those of you having access to Nextcloud please take a look at the
> draft template and discus this at the next docs meeting or post back to
> the list if you think anything should be changed or done differently.
> Thanks & Regards
To unsubscribe e-mail to: firstname.lastname@example.org
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
|[libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template||Dave Barton <email@example.com>|
|Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template||Cathy Crumbley <firstname.lastname@example.org>|
- Prev by Date: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Tabbed notebook bar will no longer be experimental with 6.2 release
- Next by Date: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Tabbed notebook bar will no longer be experimental with 6.2 release
- Previous by thread: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template
- Next by thread: [libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template