Talk:FAQ

Role of the SF FAQ after 1.4

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.

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.