Re: new website: draft 3

[Graham Percival]

On Thu, Jul 02, 2009 at 01:59:01PM +0200, Mats Bengtsson wrote:
>
> Agreed! However, I don't think it's a good idea to hide something that  
> most people would expect to find in a good FAQ, as a level 2 section in  
> the learning manual. My proposal is simply to include a "FAQ" link which  
> is easily found on the web page and let it contain a link to the "When  
> things don't work" as well as to the Tutorial (or whatever is suited for  
> the "where's the application" type questions and possibly some more  
> place.
...
> Don't be offended, Graham! I really like the effort you have put into  
> the docs and the organization of the docs, but sometimes it's like you  
> have been hit by the"not invented here" syndrome. What's wrong with  
> having a link called "FAQ" that provides yet another entry point into  
> the existing manuals, for people looking for information?

I'm not offended; I *do* have a "not invented here" syndrome.
Just last week, I was ready to disregard one of Chip's suggestions
until he created an html+css page to demonstrate what he was
talking about (the 3-column idea for more pages).  When I saw
that, I immediately agreed with it.

You're right about people easily missing LM 5.2 on the first read,
and ironically the nice "intro docs / regular docs" division will
make it *harder* to find LM 5.2 later on.
(as an aside, I'm vaguely considering if LM 5 should be moved to
the AU, along with some similar extra material.  Trevor: don't
worry, I wouldn't do anything like this without a concrete
proposal and *much* more discussion)


Anyway, I'm fine with a "FAQ: something isn't working!  Answer:
read @ref{When things don't work}".  I'm even ok with a "FAQ:
where's the application?  Answer: read the @ref{Text input}",
although I **really** don't think that will be necessary with out
new webpage.  I've done everything[1] possible to beat this into
people's heads...

[1] no, wait!  If somebody gets lilypond as part of their linux
package system, and clicks on "manuals", they'll miss all the
warnings!  Mao, foiled again!   ... maybe I should add a @ref{Text
input} to the docs-intro section, after all.


Anyway*2, what other questions would you propose?  My idea is
that the FAQ should contain 4-10 questions.  Currently, we have
1: Why do you change the syntax?
2: Something isn't working!
3: Where is the app (_maybe_)


The webpages have changed a fair bit since the last time, so you
might want to wait until draft 4 is online before answering.

Cheers,
- Graham