From: Paul V. <pa...@vi...> - 2004-03-08 23:04:41
|
Hi all, Well, the first four docs from our manual module are finally online. The direct URL is http://www.firebirdsql.org/devel/docs/manual/defaulthtml/ Links to the two user docs have been placed on the Documentation::User Documentation page of the website. I have yet to update the Developer's Corner::Firebird Documentation page to link to the Docwriters' Howtos. Greetings, Paul Vinkenoog |
From: Paul V. <pa...@vi...> - 2004-03-09 00:21:40
|
> Well, the first four docs from our manual module are finally online. > The direct URL is > > http://www.firebirdsql.org/devel/docs/manual/defaulthtml/ Sorry, "docs" --> "doc". Correct URL is: http://www.firebirdsql.org/devel/doc/manual/defaulthtml/ Greetings, Paul Vinkenoog |
From: Paul V. <pa...@vi...> - 2004-03-09 00:32:21
|
Hi, > http://www.firebirdsql.org/devel/doc/manual/defaulthtml/ I think the way we use the navigation icons is a bit weird: the upward-pointing triangle is used to jump to the topmost T.o.C., and the one that looks like a sheet of paper with lines on it is used to go one level up. I think it should be the other way round, especially if you look at how the other triangles are used (next - previous). Any ideas? Greetings, Paul Vinkenoog |
From: Lester C. <le...@ls...> - 2004-03-09 07:54:56
|
Paul Vinkenoog wrote: > I think the way we use the navigation icons is a bit weird: the > upward-pointing triangle is used to jump to the topmost T.o.C., and > the one that looks like a sheet of paper with lines on it is used to > go one level up. I think it should be the other way round, especially > if you look at how the other triangles are used (next - previous). I use Contents and Index rather than Icons, and people still get confused. In this case we have 'Bookcase' and 'Book Contents' so perhaps the Up arrow should be three overlapping boxes indicating 'Books' and trim the size of the second to match the top book on the first? -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services |
From: Paul V. <pa...@vi...> - 2004-03-10 23:21:34
|
Hi Lester, >> I think the way we use the navigation icons is a bit weird: the >> upward-pointing triangle is used to jump to the topmost T.o.C., and >> the one that looks like a sheet of paper with lines on it is used >> to go one level up. I think it should be the other way round, >> especially if you look at how the other triangles are used (next - >> previous). > I use Contents and Index rather than Icons, and people still get > confused. In this case we have 'Bookcase' and 'Book Contents' so > perhaps the Up arrow should be three overlapping boxes indicating > 'Books' and trim the size of the second to match the top book on > the first? Hmmm... this would confuse ME, I'm afraid :-) So the stack of books should be for the overall ToC? But then the floating top book would suggest you go to the top. Actually, I think this "books" metaphore doesn't work. I think users see the HTML version as a series of webpages (which it is), not as books on a shelf. It's easy to get lost in this web of pages, especially since each book/article is split up into a number of pages, and also becuase of how the left/right triangles work: - sometimes they take you to the previous/next section, which is intuitive, and you stay on the same level. - sometimes they take you from the last page of a book to the first page of the next book (or vice versa), which is less intuitive and you also go up/down one level when this happens (because the first page is the "local ToC" - if you click "next" a couple of times you can get back there by clicking the "up one level" link). I don't think this is Very Bad, but at least the two "upward" links should be very clear about where they take you to. I'll try to find more alternatives and present them on a test page so we can see what works best. Greetings, Paul Vinkenoog |
From: Lester C. <le...@ls...> - 2004-03-10 23:32:17
|
Paul Vinkenoog wrote: > Hmmm... this would confuse ME, I'm afraid :-) > So the stack of books should be for the overall ToC? But then the > floating top book would suggest you go to the top. The way I work, each module is it's own book, with a TOC and Index. Each can be accessed in it's own right, so the top level is the library rather than some vast TOC :) THAT I think is the problem. As the volume grows will a complex TOC become too cumbersome? -- Lester Caine ----------------------------- L.S.Caine Electronic Services |
From: Paul V. <pa...@vi...> - 2004-03-13 00:57:17
|
Hi Lester, > The way I work, each module is it's own book, with a TOC and > Index. Each can be accessed in it's own right, so the top level is > the library rather than some vast TOC :) So you only have one or two levels of ToCs? In the manual module I think we have four or five levels, of which at least three have ToCs. That is OK, but the high-level ToCs mustn't get too complex (= too much detail for too many documents at once). > THAT I think is the problem. As the volume grows will a complex TOC > become too cumbersome? Yes, it will. Because our overall ToC is already too detailed now (with only four moderately-sized docs in the set). I would prefer it to list only the titles. I'll find out if the ToC depth can be adjusted for the top ToC (there is a parameter to adjust the depth, but this also affects the local ToCs). If there isn't a parameter we'll have to write an XSL template for it. Greetings, Paul Vinkenoog |