El Dimarts, 15 de setembre de 2015, a les 08:01:44, Albert Vaca va escriure: > I don't think that having "descriptive documentation" (more about this > later) is that important nowadays, and IMO users will likely google for > help way before they use the help button when they find issues. Since most > people I talked to in Randa agreed with me on this, I'm a bit surprised to > find that you want to enforce this as a strong requirement.
He doesn't want to enforce this as a strong requirement. It is just another of the requirement listed on our list of requirements. > IMO, the kind of documentation that users need is not a list of every > button in the KCM with a redundant description like the one we provide > (probably because most projects write it just to meet the requirement), but > instead answers to questions like "I see error X, what to do?". And this > kind of help is easier to find online, in wikis, forums, etc. than in the > static documentation we provide. People need both, documentation that drives them through the crucial/hard parts of the UI and support forums for when something goes wrong, they're not exclusive. > Leaving aside the utility of having docs, they are yet another moving piece > to maintain and likely to become outdated (eg: "Activity Settings" help > shows a screenshot from KDE 4), specially in a piece of software in change > like KDE Connect. What makes KDE Connect special? > To put an example of a similar case, Windows 10 completely removed the > "Help Center" and now it sends you online to the MS site if you need help. Meaning you're screwed if you don't have internet access \o/ > Why don't we move our docs to the userbase wiki, and make it an open and > live thing that users can update (ala Arch Linux wiki)? If there are no > objections, I could start a page for KDE Connect there and make the help > button in the KCM link to it. Also, since right now we don't have any > numbers around how many poeple uses our help, moving it to the web would > give us some nice analytics around it for free. Because as well as the internet being awesome it also sucks, if you go to https://userbase.kde.org/Okular [1] we recommed removing ~/.cups/lpoptions if you have problems printing, sure it says "the file was corrupt", but how many of our users are able to diferentiate a corrupt lpoptions from a non corrupt one (i can't)? I've let it there as a testimony of the dark side of wikis. Cheers, Albert [1] a page that has less content and is generally worse than https://okular.kde.org/ that i still don't understand why we need, but that's a discussion for a different day > > Albert
