Talk:FAQ
Contents
More on Frequently Asked Questions written in full in sidebar
see also editornote in article for how it looks when ON the page (wraps)
below is how it looks when NOT on the page (two variants)
More on the Role of the SF FAQ after 2.0
See below for an earlier discussion from 2010.
This discussion is transferred from a recent email thread amongst the core manual team.
Gale wrote 20Dec11:
>Another baton not picked up is translations for the FAQ's moved into the >Manual. We can't go into 2.0 with Manual FAQ competing with ancient >FAQ's on: http://audacity.sourceforge.net/help/faq . >I see this as P2.
And Gale subsequently wrote 20Dec11:
>The SF FAQ IMO should after 2.0 just be links to the (currently five) >FAQ sections in the Manual. Vaughan sees a problem with that in >that the current translations of the (mostly outdated) SF FAQ's >would be lost. It's less of a problem than he thinks, I feel, because >only about six languages actually have near-complete web >translations. > >So I see the "solution" as copying the translations into the Manual, >where the content still approximately resembles that of the Manual >FAQ's. Then we ask translators to address the Manual FAQ's like >they would if they were on SF.
Peter responded 21Dec11:
I thought we all (me, Gale & James) agreed nearly two years ago now that the manual was to be *the* place for FAQs rather than the SF site. The discussion back then was that once 1.4/2.0 was released we (Gale, James?) would thin out ot the SF to a bare minimum. On the Talk page for the manual's FAQ (i.e. this page) James gave as a primary reason our easier ability to update the manual wiki rather than the cumbersome processes for updating the SF site (to which few of us have editorial access) and I fully support and endorse this reasoning.
Now I accept the responsibility of not picking up the baton 2-3 years ago of not moving the translations when I moved the original SF FAQ entries to the manual. I tried and failed (Gale gave me instructions) - my tries screwed up the manual so badly I abandoned the task.
The problem now is that since I moved those FAQs they have been maintained an much updated over that period that they have been in the manual. So doubt that there is much value at all in blindly copying the translations over from SF site - they are likely to be very out of date. I also recall that when moving the native English FAQs a large amount of the expended effort went into fixing and testing the links (a lot of them).
So much better, in my view, would be to abandon the SF translations and ask the translators to take responsibility for translating the current FAQ material in the manual as then that will be up to date.
Role of the SF FAQ after 2.0
Gale: Is this meant to mirror the website FAQ or to be different? Shouldn't the two match at the point of release of 1.4.0?
- James: I think this should be the 'master copy' for the FAQ. I'd rather we had a FAQ on a wiki where we can quickly update and improve than on a website where there's red tape to the slightest change. I'd be fine with the Sourceforge FAQ disappearing once we have its contents here. If we want to keep the sourceforge FAQ, then some way to publish this one over there, to save us from duplicated work.
- Peter 7Mar10: For a while now the FAQ in the manual has had exactly the same content as that on the Sourceforge site. We should not be maintaining two copies of exactly the same content. So I support James' suggestion that the Sourceforge FAQ should be removed.
- Gale: 7Mar10: I was always supportive of moving when we released 1.4/2.0. Until then, the Manual FAQ needs updating for 2.0 (something I've said I would do), while the SF FAQ still needs to refer to both Beta and non-Beta . In practice, the SF FAQ has always ignored the Beta version, which I'm slowly changing. For this reason, the Manual FAQ is not the same as the SF FAQ the last time Peter synchronised it (see the VST FAQs for example).
- Another short-term factor against moving the SF FAQs is that they lose their translations. I think Peter was going to copy the translations from SF FAQ to Manual FAQ (I gave some instructions) but this hasn't happened. We won't move to Manual FAQ until that happens. Meantime for English FAQs I think we could either
- continue to slowly adjust the FAQs in both places so they match, or
- slowly add Beta information to the SF FAQs and modify the Manual FAQs so they reflect Beta only.
- I think 2) is better, and means we don't have to keep comparing the two FAQs. If the translation does not match the Manual content, we can note that. We just have to stress the importance of translating the Manual as well as the site. Also the link to FAQs on the Wiki front page should perhaps be diverted back to SF, or include both FAQs, given there is no immediate prospect of 2.0.
- Currently only myself and occasionally Richard work on the SF site (it's a clumsy job doing PHP edits and then pushing the changes at the command line, both these things due to having translations).
Images in the Manual FAQ?
James: I think the FAQ should not have images in it. Longer answers (with images) when they are needed should be linked to as 'tutorial pages'. This way the FAQ is in the tradition of usenet FAQs where people can capture it as a plain text file.
- Gale: I am in two minds about images. The Wiki does give us some opportunity to include them in the FAQ. I agree the FAQs must be concise, but once again some users have felt they are (were) not detailed enough and sometimes images can actually save text. I would not want to rule images out at the moment. If you look at a Wiki page with images, say: http://audacityteam.org/wiki/index.php?title=Mixing_stereo_tracks_to_mono_in_your_Project
- and just use Windows Clipboard and Notepad, it captures nicely with the image Alt text replacing the images. And many users will have more sophisticated clipboards/text programs than those.
One page for Manual FAQ or several?
Gale: The SF FAQ has separate pages for every FAQ; at the moment the Manual FAQ has all the FAQs on one page.
- Is it better to have at least separate pages for each section of the FAQ (Recording, Editing and so on), then instead of a contents table, the main FAQ page just has grouped links to anchors on each of the FAQ section pages?
- Or if we keep the FAQ on one page, the Table of Contents is huge. I'm inclined to have headings for only the FAQ sections, then the Contents only needs seven or eight entries.
I think either of the above encourages reading of multiple FAQs. The SF idea does lead to people reading some FAQs but not others, demonstrated repeatedly on -help list.
- Peter: I support the former: a page per section and a contents list of sections on the main FAQ page
- Peter: In a one page FAQ, or even in a one page per section FAQ, many of the links to other FAQ articles are now somewhat ridiculous as they now link to a piece of text which is either immediately above or immediately below the current article.
Gale, 06May08, 20:01 UTC: Links immediately below is a bit of a problem. It might be better to say " See also the next FAQ below "Why can't I play MIDI files" ". Links above should remain as links, because the user may go to the FAQ that has the link as an anchor, and then can't see the question above, however near it is. For now, leave the internal links as you've done them (thanks for that). It's something we can decide when the structure including all the questions and their order is finalised.
Gale: 27 Jan 11: Rather than
> Forward To: FAQ:Editing
< Back to: FAQ:Recording
|< Index of Frequently Asked Questions
wouldn't it be nicer to have the > < |< as custom bullet images to left of the link?
To make the link e.g.
<ul><li class="fwd">Forward to FAQ:Editing</li></ul>
I can arrange this if we think it's a good idea.
