On Feb 25, 2015, at 2:54 AM, Jeff Fearn <jfearn(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Signed PGP part
On 02/24/2015 04:49 PM, Brian (bex) Exelbierd wrote:
> Should we have styling more like the
getfedora.org site? Fedora Magazine? The Spins
page? I think we can easily take some of their visual elements.
Possibly, I'm only making the base for that kind of work to follow on.
cool.
> The layout is quite nice though. Once we are ready to generate
docs in whatever tool-chain we want, it will be awesome.
This is orthogonal to such changes.
I realize that. What wasn’t clear to me from your email is whether we could hook this up
today or not. It also wasn’t clear whether this was prepared to be tooled or was a tool.
> Did you give any thought as to how to help users understand why
we have three categories of documentation for each release?
You mean the groups? e.g. "Getting started", "System administration",
etc?
Actually I meant Fedora vs Fedora Contributor vs Fedora Draft Documentation.
I don’t know if those are clear. Since you were re-imaginging the site, I was curious
what your thoughts were.
> Should we now group by the fedora.next groupings?
This is orthogonal to this demo as you can easily change groups once the
updated tool chain is being used.
It could be orthogonal or not depending on how we do the grouping and how the groups I
mentioned above are generated.
FWIW If you take a look at the Red Hat docs you will not see this
kind
of division even though RH have been doing variants for a long time.
I am familiar with the RH platform doc set. I also know where some of the rough edges
with the variants are. However, the RH customer, it seems to be believed, is different
from the Fedora customer. So what is good for the goose may not be good for the gander.
I think it'd be a lot of work and/or duplication to split up the
docs to
cover variants.
I think there are options around a content strategy that could be very interesting if we
go down a split doc set road.
regards,
bex