Re: Re^6: dhelp directory structure
Hi,
>>"Marco" == Marco Budde <Marco.Budde@hqsys.antar.com> writes:
Marco> Am 16.04.98 schrieb srivasta # datasync.com ... Moin Manoj!
MS> Though I have not been following the debate very closely, I do
MS> believe we should allow for packages to be cross-indexed under
MS> multiple headings.
Marco> I don#t think so, instead we should use a very good structure
Marco> that helps the user to find the needed document very easily.
I do not think that is possible. Keep it simple; if a package
is documented under several heading it does make it easier to
search. Recipe books are good examples -- Soups, Broccoli and
Broccoli, Soup is nicer that having it under oine heading or the
other.
MS> The headings Should be chosen for maximal ease-of-use in
MS> searching, and it is concievable that a package can reasonably be
MS> classified under several such headings.
Marco> Please, don#t mix up packages with documents.
Fine. The arguments I madfe still apply to individual documents.
Marco> A package could contain several documents and you could of
Marco> course register each document in an other directory. For some
Marco> documents it maybe makes sense to register them in more than
Marco> one diretory (see the bash man page).
Oh Goody, you agree.
Marco> But I don#t like to register most documents in several
Marco> directories.
Can't have it both ways. Id *does* make sense to register
documents in multiple headings (which may or may not be implemented
as doirectories).
Marco> If we do so, we don#t need directories. Then we
Marco> could move all documents in one directory and our user will
Marco> always find his document in the first directory.
Things are rarely black and white. There is a matter of degree.
MS> From the human factors viewpoint, it is more important to support
MS> the index view rather than the TOC view.
Marco> I don#t think so. If you want to build an index you have to add
Marco> every HTML page of a document (like for example HOWTO.html,
Marco> HOWTO-1.html, etc.) to several directories.
I think the inherent structure should support such
cross-indexing. Unix file heirarchies use softlinks for
this. External indices are nice, but I think that if the underlying
structure reflects the inter connections of the underlying data, you
save a lot of hassle later. It may well allow one less layer between
the user and the information, and that is always good.
Marco> On a computer you don#t need an index any more. You could use
Marco> full text search. Most books don#t offer a good index. It#s not
Marco> easy to produce a good one.
Oh, we are not talking about a real full fledged index here.
Marco> Take for example Windows (sorry, but Win offers a good help
Marco> system) HLP files. They#re always structured like a TOC.
A pure top down heirarchy is not good unless the data itself
lends itself to that; I suggest a bushier tree with an
abundance of cross references; the more ways there are for me to
reach the information I need the faster I am likely to find one (one
should remember anything in excess is undesirable; so yes, it is
possible to abuse the links mechanism. But that is no reason to
outlaw it.)
manoj
--
Four be the things I'd have been better without: love, curiosity,
freckles and doubt. -- Dorothy Parker
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@acm.org> <http://www.datasync.com/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-doc-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: