To start writing the user guide on the Wiki, I propose the following page structure
/wiki/Documentation/UserGuide /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/Guidelines ← guidelines for Writers /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0 ← Index for the user guide for AOO 4.0, following the proposed TOC.(1) (In a future, we can start with 4_1, etc.) Then, each part of the document on different sub-pages /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/General ← sub-index for "General concepts..." chapter /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/General/UI /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/General/Formatting /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/General/Autocorrect ... /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/Tips ← sub-index for the "Cheat sheets" chapter /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/Tips/Writer /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/Tips/Calc ... /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/Writer ← sub-index for Writer's guide /wiki/Documentation/UserGuide/4_0/Writer/Intro ... and so on. The idea is to create all the pages at once, with just the categories "Documentation" and "UserGuide" and a template similar to the one we use on the ES wiki(2) for "work in process new pages", that we can call "Draft" (not sure if there is one already: I cannot find it). In parallel, we can start discussing about writing style, screenshots (desktop theme...) and related problems on other topics. After "seeding" some pages with content we start a call for authors and the "real writing"(3). Finally, when the author is ready he/she calls for review/proof reading and when every is OK we delete the "Draft" template. What do you think? (1) https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3#DetailsonScenario3-ProposedTOC (2) http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Template:ES/AyudaWiki/Borrador (3) Related question: any time frame for when dev builds with new UI elements will be available? Regards Ricardo 2013/1/10 RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> > Hi, > > 2013/1/10 Guy Waterval <waterval....@gmail.com> > >> Hi all, >> Hi Ricardo, >> >> 2013/1/8 RGB ES <rgb.m...@gmail.com> >> >> > 2013/1/7 Rob Weir <robw...@apache.org> >> > >> > >> > Snip >> >> >> > > b) define a table of contents or rough content outline for each core >> > > deliverable >> > > >> > >> > We can start from this draft >> > >> > >> > >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Details+on+Scenario+3#DetailsonScenario3-ProposedTOC >> > >> > maybe focusing on the first two chapters for now. >> > >> >> Looking at the TOC, I really think that it's a good approach to get a >> reduced volume of documentation and make it easier to update. Such >> organisation could also perhaps reduce the learning curve of the program. >> > > Let's hope that: AOO is really easy to use, but only when you know how to > use it :) > > > >> I wonder if we could also introduce or not the following in the chapter >> "General concepts" >> >> >> - links which are present in the different modules. >> - tables : a general introduction and global manipulations (specific >> issues for Writer being developped in the Writer module). >> - Fields : introduction in each module or a general introduction in >> the >> general concepts chapter?. >> > > > My idea was to left the "general concepts" chapter as general as possible, > to use it as reference on the other chapters. On the Writer chapter there > is an area devoted to tables and fields. For a quick comment on those > subjects, the "cheat sheets" chapter could be better, IMO. > > > >> >> Another issue about terminology. >> Is it possible to consider tables, fields and links as inserable objetcts >> or not. Of course in Writer they belong to the text layer, but in Draw and >> Impress, they have an object behaviour as images. These elements are for >> me >> always difficult to classify. Which category do you recommand? For fields >> and links I usually use "special text zones" but I'm not sure if this is >> the correct approach. >> > > Agree, and indeed that's another reason to talk about tables on each > component and not on the general chapter. Tables on Draw and Impress are > rather limited compared with tables on Writer. > > Talking about terminology, field can be considered as "automated text". > Some fields (chapter and page field, for example) can be considered as > "contextual text" also: their value depends on the point they are inserted. > Links are difficult to categorize: we have links as in html links but also > links as cross references, as footnote anchors... maybe it's better to > not categorize them at all :) > > Regards > Ricardo > > > >> >> Many thanks >> -- >> gw >> >> > >> > >> > >> > >
