[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: GDP: summary and directions, 11 Sep
From: |
Graham Percival |
Subject: |
Re: GDP: summary and directions, 11 Sep |
Date: |
Tue, 11 Sep 2007 17:33:16 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Icedove 1.5.0.12 (X11/20070607) |
Trevor Bača wrote:
That then leaves the question of what to do with the other stuff. What
about this?
* Spacing: recast as a separate manual called Page Layout
* Input and output: move to Program Usage
* Changing defaults: move to Program Reference
* Interfaces for programmers: move to Program Reference
Nu-huh, Program Reference is "where angels fear to tread", remember. :P
That would then leave the following separate books:
(5 books)
I think that's getting too fragmented.
...
My initial reaction was "no way; we want to make tweaking more friendly,
not less". But I had forgotten about the Learning Manual -- that
clearly shows the beginning of tweaks, and (of course) more work is planned.
Hmmm...
*IF* it were easy to move Changing and Interfaces into the program
reference, I could almost buy that. That's a pretty big if, though.
If we renamed the Program Usage book, we _might_ be able to fit Spacing
and Input in there. I'm not wild about it, though. But I definitely
don't agree with making a separate book for Page Layout.
... ok, what about everybody else? Think about it for a few minutes
before responding: my initial reaction was "WTF is Trevor smoking", but
I'm starting to think he wasn't crazy.
Please remember the following:
- HTML links between documents is cheap and easy.
- introductions belong in the Learning manual. If you haven't skimmed
through chapter 5, please do so. I'm planning on a least doubling the
material in the LM, so users will have a good idea of how things work by
the time they finish it. An extensive "how to read the other books"
section will be included at the end of the LM.
- we officially have no sympathy for users who haven't read the LM. :-)
For the record, I'm still opposed to this idea, but it's now a "weak
reject". I could be convinced otherwise.
Cheers,
- Graham