On 03.07.2009, at 08:44, Graham Percival wrote:
Anyway, I'm fine with a "FAQ: something isn't working! Answer: read @ref{When things don't work}". I'm even ok with a "FAQ: where's the application? Answer: read the @ref{Text input}", although I **really** don't think that will be necessary with out new webpage. I've done everything[1] possible to beat this into people's heads...[1] no, wait! If somebody gets lilypond as part of their linux package system, and clicks on "manuals", they'll miss all the warnings! Mao, foiled again! ... maybe I should add a @ref{Text input} to the docs-intro section, after all.
Also, have you heard of sites like macupdate? Actually, have you ever typed into a web browser "lilypond download"? There are tons of ways people can and will get lilypond without documentation and be completely baffled as to its usage. And then stumble upon a "Problems with LilyPond should be reported here: bug-lilyp...@gnu.org" Sadly, you cannot idiot proof anything. All you can do is make it incredibly easy to find the answers.
Anyway*2, what other questions would you propose? My idea is that the FAQ should contain 4-10 questions. Currently, we have 1: Why do you change the syntax? 2: Something isn't working! 3: Where is the app (_maybe_)
Well, if they are the most frequently asked questions… I mean, a quick look at bug-lilypond shows that two of those two FAQ questions are the most commonly asked.
James E. Bailey
_______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
