Finish the old HIG [was Re: [kde-guidelines] This & That]

[Frans Englich]

On Tuesday 07 December 2004 22:05, Lauri Watts wrote:
> On Tuesday 07 December 2004 22:46, Frans Englich wrote:
> > On Sunday 05 December 2004 01:55, Frans Englich wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >1) it
> > > has the TOC/organization which Ellen suggested; 2) It is spell
> > > checked/edited for sanity/spec quality; and has various boring grunt
> > > work done, such as 3) 400 table entries; and 4) inline elements.[4]
> >
> > Yep, that's the description of the Docbook/edited version at:
> >  http://usability.kde.org/hig/current/
> >
> > The problem is that we have two HIGs in CVS, while we only link to the
> > one at:
> > http://developer.kde.org/documentation/standards/kde/style/basics/index.h
> >tm
> >
> > This gives me the creep, because users mail me about "the" HIG, and I
> > have no responsibility for the latter. We must remove one of them, I
> > think.
>
> I was actually under the impression the former was to be removed.

Yes, that was what I suggested on kde-usability, simultaneously asking for why 
to remove it, instead of the old-old(yes, this is a duplicate discussion, 
I'll explain).

>  It has
> quite some objections.  

Well, Aaron "objected" that it counter acted what would happen at aKademy, and 
I, Waldo, and others, stated the content was not changed but was a conversion 
to Docbook to precisely make it easier for future work -- Aaron didn't object 
to those replies. As I once wrote on kde-usability:

"I've done some changes to the KUA project. I know it's going slow, I've been 
busy with getting the UIG finished for aKademy."

That Thomas then re-added the old-old HIG, and redirected the links, and that 
you then backed him up "to 100%" with "it's confusing with two HIGs" was 
rather amusing, because 1) the old-old was removed so the problem of two HIGs 
that you say only started to exist /after/ Thomas did it; 2) the new 
HIG/location was announced on several mailinglists; and 3) all links pointed 
to the new location. (just so that it's clear)

But right, you three objected. I have never understood why.

> The one on developer.k.o is to all intents and
> purposes "The" HIG currently.

Right.

>
> > To me, I think the Docbook'd version is superior(see above). Also, since
> > we'll use it as base for our future HIG, it's pretty good to has as our
> > old. However, I wasn't involved in re-adding the hig at developer.kde.org
> > and redirecting the links, so someone else will have to speak up.
>
> It's only superior right now in that it's got prettier graphics.

In the mail you reply to, I state something quite different, don't you think? 
That suggests either you or me is wrong. For example, I say "It is spell 
checked/edited for sanity/spec quality", but you say " It's only superior 
right now in that it's got prettier graphics." Could you _reply_ to my 
letter, counteract my arguments, instead of doing contradicting statements 
out of context?

>  The markup is incomplete and incorrect.
>  If it's going to be retained, at least
> it should be a fixed up version.  You can stop ranting to me about the 400
> table entries, because I have since corrected several hundred *more* that
> were flagrantly wrong, along with a fair amount of other dodgy markup, and
> that was just on one run through.  I don't doubt I'd find more to fix if I
> went over it again.

Can I see the diff? I have surely missed emphasis->semantical conversions. I 
don't see how it matters much though since we won't work on it, but it would 
make it easier to read.

But nevertheless, the advantages is to me dead clear. Please deny/confirm what 
you(or anyone else) think is wrong:

1) It has a 80kb patch(fyi, that's 2400 lines) of plain text editing(no 
markup); spell-checking and compacting, removing ambiguities etc.

2) It do have pretty graphics, and it has pretty styles, and it's integrated 
into KDE's web framework -- and that matters.

3) It has the TOC similar to what Ellen announced. You wrote on kde-usability:

"We (well, Jan in fact) cornered many developers over the course of aKademy to 
do some on-the-spot usability research, and find out *how* they really use 
the guidelines in practise.  This led to a rather different structure for the 
content to facilitate how it's really used."

and it's great that the Docbook'd HIG accomplishes that.

I find it fairly obvious it's superior -- please reply to my claims. If you 
think the only positive about it is the graphics, then assert how I am wrong. 
You have to put it in relation to what I wrote, otherwise we can just as well 
skip the mailinglist.

> I don't see any reason to commit that to a version
> without mandate and with objectors.

1) What do you imply? That you can only commit? That I would commit without 
consensus? Clime down from your throne.

2) You're confused: it's already in CVS. We're not talking about what to 
develop from(that Ellen reuse parts is great, that's why I did the work. I 
would have gone further than that but who cares), it's about which one to use 
during the years we develop the new guidelines. 

As a side note: no "pseudo" objectors from now on, because it's not that 
clear. If anyone objects, such as Ellen, Jan, or anyone else, they can speak 
for themselves and mention specifically what they object to.

Much of this has already been discussed in the "Re: Fwd: Re: 
www/areas/usability/hig" thread on kde-usability, and the same claims and 
questions I pose in this mail are in that thread, but _without_ replies 
stating in what way I am wrong.


Cheers,

		Frans