[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Draft Proposal for a 6.x Guides Template


Hi Cathy,

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.

Regards
Dave


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.
>
> Cathy
>
> 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:
>> https://nextcloud.documentfoundation.org/f/81381
>>
>> 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
>> guides.
>
> We should agree on how to handle this. I suggest talking about this
> Wednesday.
>
>>
>>    * Wherever possible I have used "Document Properties" and other
>> fields
>>      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
>> and
>>      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
> helpful.
>
>  * 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
> style.
>
> 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
> Dave
>
>
>


--
To unsubscribe e-mail to: documentation+unsubscribe@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? https://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: https://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/documentation/
Privacy Policy: https://www.documentfoundation.org/privacy

Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.