Re: Meaning of "getting started"

["Pedro de Medeiros" <pedrovmm+lists gmail com>]

On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 15:07, Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org> wrote:
> On Fri, 2008-10-31 at 13:11 +0000, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
>> Leonardo Fontenelle wrote on 29/10/08 00:50:
>> >
>> > http://library.gnome.org/devel/gdp-style-guide/stable/infodesign-2.html.en
>> >
>> > What's the difference between "introduction" and "getting started"?
>> >...
>>
>> "Getting started" probably is helpful, "Introduction" probably isn't. ;-)
>
> If we're talking about documentation in general, I'd say
> it depends on what you're writing.  "Introduction" should
> be used to introduce concepts and terminology.  This is,
> I suspect, most useful in developer documentation.  But
> it could be useful as a subsection title for more complex
> applications.  For instance, a section on charting for a
> spreadsheet manual might be served well by an introduction.
>
> Now, if we're talking about the first section of a typical
> application help manual, then we definitely want "Getting
> Started".  And not just the title.  A "Getting Started"
> section should be a real hands-on tutorial to how to use
> the application.
>
> If you have a "Getting Started" section that reads like
> the following, you've done something wrong.
>
>  Beanstalk is an application for collecting and counting
>  magic beans.  Beanstalk is free software under the GPL.
>  Beanstalk uses [boring list of libraries users really
>  do not care about].  Beanstalk can be used to [list of
>  things you can do, without telling you how to do any of
>  them].  In the future, [OK, stop.  Documentation is not
>  the right place for your roadmap.  Ever.  Seriously.]


Well, it seems that "introduction" should never be
replaced by "getting started", but I think the opposite
doesn't look so bad (i.e., replacing "getting started"
by "introduction").


Pedro