On Fri, Nov 01, 2002 at 04:29:20PM -0500, Dimitrie O. Paun wrote:
On November 1, 2002 04:02 pm, Andreas Mohr wrote:
I agree that using a static web page for the FAQ part instead could probably be better - but for the troubleshooting content ?? The troubleshooting content is meant to be a step-by-step problem solver area (and it is, to some extent). Now tell me how you'd implement the same thing easily with an ordinary web page, without losing flexibility for very quick changes/reordering ??
Well, for one thing, this should not be in the FAQ, but a separate troubleshooting section. Second, I *know* I don't want to see the FOM as a user. It's just bad. Beyond words! :) I don't understand why you want this very quick changes/reordering flexibility. It just seems we're trying to fix the wrong problem. We don't need a tool to help us add hundred of pages, because nobody will bother to read them. We need to think how we can present the information in a few pages. Tops. If not, we are better off spending the time fixing the problems, rather than documenting workarounds on hundreds of pages.
The largest part of the FOM *is* the troubleshooting section. The FAQ is only a small part of the FOM that has been added later for maintenance convenience of the FAQ.
Good luck implementing it in a different way. I'm outta that one for now, especially given that spending my time on non-Wine things currently probably is a wise thing to do.
About the hundreds of pages: What's so problematic with navigating a directory structure that gets more and more specific about your problem until you (hopefully) hit the specific answer to your question ? That'd all get lost with your suggested change.
Sometimes I've got the impression that I'm partly fighting the "KISS dumb-it-down-until-there-is-plain-nothing-left-to-annoy-the-helpless-user- with-its-bewildering-size-and-information-overload syndrome".