Observations in packaged Ubuntu Documentation (Hoary)

[matthew.east.ubuntu at breathe.com]

Hi, 

> Good on-screen help:
{snip} 

I agree with all those things which you categorise as characteristics of 
good on screen help. As per our discussion on irc yesterday, I believe that 
we want the same thing, the difference between us is that I believe there is 
a place in yelp for both your vision and the "books" which have been worked 
on by documentation team members. Yes, these are books, and this means that 
they can usefully be printed out to read, but in my opinion they can still 
be read using yelp as well. I believe that having a yelp frontpage which 
points to each of the relevant documents/books can be done without 
sacrificing simplicity for the user, something like this: 

* Ubuntu StarterGuide - Here you can find information to help you quickly 
set up and personalise your Ubuntu. 

[mycomment] - this would contain all the categories you specify in your 
wikipage, and probably use content from ubuntuguide.org and the FAQ guide. 
[/mycomment] 

The following documents are books, and may be found in pdf (ready to print) 
form [link]here.[/link] 

* Ubuntu UserGuide - This is a book which explains to the newcomer how Linux 
and Ubuntu work.
* Ubuntu AdminGuide - This is a book which explains how to administrate an 
Ubuntu system.
* Ubuntu InstallGuide -  This is a book which takes you through the 
installation process. 

and yes, naturally I agree that the use of an installguide is not paramount 
to users who have already installed Ubuntu: the installguide should of 
course be available on both cds and on the net, and preferably well linked 
from releases.ubuntu.com 

> I'm sorry, but I really don't think that's a good idea. That would mean, 
> every time you opened the help, you have to choose what kind of user you 
> are. Remember when in Windows 95 or NT 4.0, the first time you looked at 
> the help for a program, it asked you what kind of database you wanted? 
> <http://joelonsoftware.com/uibook/chapters/fog0000000059.html> This would 
> be even worse, because it wouldn't just be happening the first time, it 
> would be happening *every* time. 
> 
> Even if people could be bothered answering, questions like that don't 
> really work. People aren't uniformly novices or experts; they're experts 
> in some things, and not in others. And even if they did have uniform skill 
> level, asking them what that level was wouldn't work either. Some people 
> would give the wrong answers because they were underestimating or 
> overestimating their ability. Some people would give the wrong answers 
> because they didn't want to admit (even to a computer) that they were 
> novices. And some people would give right answers, but not get the help 
> they wanted, because we authors had made false assumptions about how easy 
> or difficult a particular topic is. Sometimes, if people didn't find their 
> answer in one "book", they'd try looking in another, but mostly they just 
> wouldn't bother and they'd go to Google instead.

This is all quite right, of course. I didn't intend a structure based on 
"skill level", but I am simply looking for a way to include the documents we 
have, without sacrificing simplicity and accessibility. 

gotta run now for a class... 

Matt