Re: Documentation and Usability
From: Micha Feigin (michf_at_post.tau.ac.il)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:25:04 +0200 To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On Sat, Jan 17, 2004 at 01:22:58PM -0700, Monique Y. Herman wrote:
> On 2004-01-17, Mac McCaskie penned:
> > I think my point would be closer to not allowing a package on-board
> > without adaqate instruction on what it was and how to use it.
> > Where is the value of providing a widget to a customer without giving
> > them a clue as to what the widget is or what to do with it.
So according to Mac McCaskie if a program writer doesn't bother to
write the documentation then it shouldn't be packaged until the
maintainer sits down to write the documentation.
That approach would keep quite a few programs from being packaged.
On the other hand if you don't find the documentation supplied with the
package enough, you can always google for it to find more information
(I do that quite a bit).
Considering the fact that the package maintainers volunteer to package
the programs makes me thankful to them for saving me the work. I am
always happier if they add documentation where it hasn't existed
before, but I see it as an extra, not a requirement.
> That word "customer"; doesn't it imply that you paid for the product?
> Anyhoo, your definition of adequate might be quite different from
> another user's definition.
> If there's a package that will solve a problem for me, I would rather
> have it available without any documentation at all than have it
> completely unavailable due to lack of documentation.
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to email@example.com with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact firstname.lastname@example.org