Using userbase for manuals

[Boudewijn Rempt]

On Sunday 01 July 2012 Jul, Kevin Ottens wrote:
> > And i'm going to be a pain here, but i do not agree userbase scale better
> > either.
> > Let's see Krita manual at http://userbase.kde.org/Krita it's translated to 7
> > languages only two of them being at 100%
> > 
> > Now let's see KMail manual at
> > http://l10n.kde.org/stats/doc/stable-kde4/po/kmail.po/
> > and we have 12 at 100% and a few more over 90%
> 
> Right but that said, the number of translations is not the only metric to take 
> into account regarding documentation. Overall quality of it and its coverage 
> of the application features, keeping up with changes, are equally important 
> IMO.

The krita manual also isn't an import of an existing docbook manual, we scrapped the old one completely -- in other words, it hasn't been around as long as the kmail manual.

> That's where I think the wiki is actually superior to the docbook stuff we're 
> doing (as Boud and Eike pointed out). Now the low number of translations? 
> That's likely in part because our translators are not used to look there to 
> translate.
> 
> Which raises the question of: If we were to consistently use the wiki how do 
> we best support our documentation translators? Would they just be happy with 
> being pointed to the wiki as it is a simple enough tool? Or would they need 
> the wiki content extracted as po files so that they use their current 
> toolchain for translation (aka the wiki is a too simple tool)?

I can't answer to that, but the fact that the krita manual in its current stage already has so many translations is encouraging.

> Both possibilities are fine IMO. Means in the second case we need to write an 
> equivalent to our current docbook extractor but for the wiki somehow.
> 


-- 
Boudewijn Rempt
http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl