Re: Application Documentation Guidelines/Web Page

[Dan Mueth <d-mueth uchicago edu>]

(Sorry if anybody already got this.  I sent it yesterday, but I never
received it back from the mailing list, so I'm sending it again.)

> Alexander Kirillov <kirillov@math.sunysb.edu> writes:
> 
> | Well, I agree that there is no reason to put the documentation for
> | most applications - be it gnumeric or cd player - in the users
> | guide. However, I still feel that the core things - namely, panel and
> | desktop - should be covered in ug. After, desktop and panel are not
> | applications - they *are* GNOME itself, at leats from usres
> | perspective.  Probably, some coverage of gmc also should be there, but
> | maybe, much less detailed than it is now.
> 
> I agree, but there should still be a thorough manual for both. One
> that is updated and covers all the features, as the GUG should cover
> the main features and teach how to use it.
> 

Do we need a "User Guide" that is separate from an "Introduction to
Gnome"?

I think it is reasonable that each application have a "Manual", that we
have an introductory manual ("Introduction to Gnome" or "User Guide" or
"Getting Started with Gnome") for newbies, and something like an
"Application Index" or "Application Reference Manual" which pulls all the
"Manuals" together.

I previously thought the "User Guide" would serve as the introductory
document for newbies, but do we need two docs for this?  One very brief
introductory one for newbies, and a second more detailed "User Guide" that
describes in more detail the Gnome-specific (not applications, unless
integral to gnome) stuff. In this case, the "User Guide" would be a
reference guide, not an introduction.

Dan