Re: Linux users' expectations of online help

["Eric J. Ray" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>]

On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Sean Wheller wrote:

SW >> I think this argument conflates the issues of
SW >> _users_
SW >> and _developers_. That's like saying that Linux
SW >> users
SW >> are happy w/ vi & emacs, so haven't felt the need to
SW >> create
SW >> an IDE.
SW >
SW >I disagree with you there Eric. Linux has a legacy
SW >documentation system called MAN. The tools for
SW >creating MAN have been around since UNIX. Tools for
SW >all the other help formats also exist.

I still think the issues of creating and viewing
are being conflated. You can use *roff to _create_
man pages (or SGML in some environments), but you
use the man(1) command to view them.
You use a text editor, Helen, RoboHelp, or whatever
to create JavaHelp, but the JavaHelp viewer from
Sun to view it.

Man pages don't usually even pretend to address GUI
environments...they're obligatory for command line
tools and interfaces, but not for GUIs.

SW >MAN works just fine for most Linux Users. However,
SW >Windows Users are accustomed to the flashy
SW >presentation layer delivered by the MS Help Engines.

The problems are orthogonal...man pages are just fine
for a command line interface and a user who knows what
do to with it, but they're kludgy and inappropriate
for a GUI.


SW >Also Linux users often work via SSH, so formats like
SW >MAN and HTML are better for them. Portability is a
SW >very important concern if you want to use SSH.
SW >Remember Linux is multi-user and multi-session.

That's _one_ perspective, but overlooks many other
aspects of documentation needs. Yes, from a command
line interface, man pages and HTML read via links/lynx
is handy. Linux w/ Gnome/KDE, StarOffice, Mozilla,
and the like is far more comparable to the Windows
environment than a command line environment. In the
full GUI world, man pages don't fly (yes, I'm familar
with Xman, but it's an abomination).

For example, I'm currently running a Linux distro
on my laptop. I've yet to need to use the command line
for anything...and I'm using my wireless LAN, VPN,
Web browser, and everything else that one expects from
a desktop system. If I need help, I'll expect to get
it in a environment-appropriate means, and man pages
aren't it. (If I need help at this zsh shell session,
though, man pages will be fine.)


SW >I think the problem is that most Windows based Authors
SW >want to see a WYSIWYG tool like RoboHelp or ForeHelp.
SW >This is not available on Linux. But like you say, is
SW >there the need to develop a tool? When the tools
SW >already exist. Perhaps what we are suggesting is that
SW >a feature rich GUI will have to be developed for
SW >Authors, switching to Linux, that are accustomed to
SW >tools such as RoboHelp.

That's an interesting question...philosophically, I
think that a non-structured tool does writers a
disservice...a GUI (_not_ WYSIWYG) tool to manage
XML/SGML would be a better thing, with appropriate
hooks to pre/post processing scripts.

SW >Again. Its not the tools. Rather its the Windows user
SW >who need to have a GUI in order to develop. The tools
SW >exist and they work. Certainly this is a deficiency of
SW >Linux when viewed from the Windows user perspective.

Agreed...and I don't think it's necessary to expect
proficiency at the command line for basic computer
use. Given a decent GUI, a lot can be done easily,
but when help is needed, it should be appropriate.


SW >I am happy to say that Docbook does go the whole round
SW >trip. The DTD is now very mature and is even moving to
SW >RelaxNG. A XSD has been around for some time.
SW >
SW >The Docbook XSLs are also strong. Supporting JavaHelp,
SW >HTML, XHTML, HTML Help, MAN Pages and FO for formats
SW >such as PS, RTF and PDF.
SW >
SW >The tool chain is actually very strong. Already we are
SW >seeing the implementation of standards such as
SW >XInclude.
SW >
SW >Interested to hear your thoughts.

Yes, this I knew. I was actually speaking of the authoring
experience...the last time I looked, emacs+pgsgml or vim
with syntax highlighting was the best out there for an
authoring environment. I'd like to see an Adept/Epic-like
XML/SGML editor that provides some level of support for
the non-Unix-geek author, including a screen FOSI to
provide a comfortable environment. Frankly, I think that
it'd be popular in the Linux community in general...
although links works pretty well for web browsing, I
find that most Linux users tend to prefer the polish of
Mozilla. For authoring, I suspect the same might be
true.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

NEED TO PUBLISH YOUR FRAMEMAKER CONTENT ONLINE?
?Mustang? (code name) is a NEW online publishing tool for FrameMaker that
lets you easily single-source content to Web, intranets, and online Help.
The interface is designed for FrameMaker users, so there is little or no
learning curve and no macro language required! See a live demo that
will take your breath away: http://www.ehelp.com/techwr-l3

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.