zwike seems a step backwards IMHO

[Ben Edwards]

I agree that the whole documentation effort needs considering - but
the wiki is a very important way of getting new people involved.

Its just a shame that the move was not discussed  before a lot of work
was put in migrating.  There has now been a lot of time invested in
the migration.

I would ask that this kind of thing is discussed on the list before it
is done.  We are all at the mercy of the techies and appreciate all
there hard work - but the techies need to realise the huge amount of
power they poses.

Ben

On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 21:02:06 +0100, sparkes <sparkes at westmids.biz> wrote:
> kevin at teamindecisive.com wrote:
> > I would agree. We are still transitioning, but it isn't easy to navigate.
> 
> This will improve.  It's school holidays over here at the moment so I
> have a 6 year old running around if I can get my mom and dad to baby sit
> tomorrow I plan on looking at the information architecture.  I will
> prepare a rfc so we can brainstorm on my plans before taking them
> upstairs to make sure everything is possible.  I have already said I
> will help the zwiki team add things like internationalisation if needed
> to make the ia better.
> 
> > The yellow color + whatever color the text is is hard to read. Compare to
> > the old wiki with standard white background and black and orange text,
> > very easy to read. It seems to have taken a giant step backwards in
> > useability (learning curve) for both contributors and users.
> 
> unfortunatly the old wiki didn't match the colours and general ploneness
> ;-) of the rest of ubuntu.  I can't remember who is in charge of the
> usability (I was told but have a memory like a sieve) but if you
> document potential problems and depatch them to the correct person they
> will be acted upon.
> 
> >
> > And with this message from Lulu, it begs the question why even have the
> > wiki? If everything is going to moved from the wiki to the website, why
> > have the wiki? What's the point of the wiki? See below...
> 
> The wiki is only a tool it's not documentation ;-)  I think we need to
> start thinking more about the whole documentation package.
> 
> I know a couple of the doc guys are down to learn packaging (and I wish
> I had the time to learn how to do this as well) so some docs will go
> with the actual system, some will be on the web (such as how-to's and
> faqs), some will evolve quickly (and would be better started on the
> wiki) and some will remain almost static (apart from bug fixes
> (s/bug/spelling ;-) ) for months (such as warty docs after hoary
> releases) and some will be prepared for printing.
> 
> So if we stop thinking of the wiki as the documentation and start
> thinking of it as a tool to involve users in the documentation process
> it all starts to slot into place.
> 
> I know what it's like to start to fall in love with a tool (hell who
> couldn't love python, vi, or even linux ;-) ) but it's like a mechanic
> having a favourite spanner, sometimes it just doesn't fit ;-)
> 
> >
> > --Kevin
> >
> 
> --
> <davee> "Sparkes, the Pete Best of LugRadio"
> 
> 
> 
> --
> ubuntu-doc mailing list
> ubuntu-doc at lists.ubuntu.com
> http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-doc
> 


-- 
Ben Edwards - Poole, UK, England
WARNING:This email contained partisan views - dont ever accuse me of
using the veneer of objectivity
If you have a problem emailing me use
http://www.gurtlush.org.uk/profiles.php?uid=4
(email address this email is sent from may be defunct)