DUG Review

Karsten Wade kwade at redhat.com
Tue Mar 20 16:14:25 UTC 2007


On Mon, 2007-03-19 at 22:22 -0400, Paul W. Frields wrote:
> http://distrocenter.linux.com/article.pl?sid=07/03/13/1919208
> 
> Contributors to the DUG:
> 
> 1. Read.
> 2. Cry/wail/gnash teeth.
> 3. Ingest.
> 4. Discuss.
> 5. Fix.

First observations:

* It is a fair review and accurate in its guesses
* We feel into traps in the FDUG that are described in the review
  - Inconsistency
  - Focus on lists of features instead of what can be done and how to do
it
* As a first-effort it was good enough to publish
* The FDUG has many shining parts, and many other bruises

FWIW, we saw many of the problems that the article details before
publishing, but we couldn't delay publishing any longer.  Fortunately,
we now have a review to balance against and make adjustments with.

Technical writing is a lot harder in the work of it than many people
realize.  I'm very glad we got this guide out there and are receiving
reviews we can work against.

Let's turn this all to our advantage; make big improvements in the F7
version; and carry over the improvements to the Administration Guide.

Rock on!

- Karsten
-- 
Karsten Wade, RHCE, 108 Editor    ^     Fedora Documentation Project 
 Sr. Developer Relations Mgr.     |  fedoraproject.org/wiki/DocsProject
   quaid.108.redhat.com           |          gpg key: AD0E0C41
////////////////////////////////// \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-docs-list/attachments/20070320/fb468361/attachment.sig>


More information about the fedora-docs-list mailing list