English > Feature Suggestions

Integrated Help Forum

(1/4) > >>

rick.ca:

--- Quote from: nostra on August 28, 2010, 11:39:31 pm ---I think, I will implement some kind of tutorial or online help in version 1.
--- End quote ---

I hope that will be along the lines of what was discussed early this year in In Line Help.

To summarize, what I advocated there was the use of an HTML compiled Help file created using HelpNDoc. The program would be able to launch the Help and display a contextual topic. That topic could be any HTML resource, which I suggested could be the applicable wiki topic. This approach has three very significant advantages...

1. You would only have to provide the context "hooks" and the code to use them in calling contextual help. There would also be, of course, help menu items linking to more general "how to" topics or tutorials. When adding a new feature in the future, you would just add a new hook, add the corresponding topic to the help file, and link that to an online resource. That resource would likely only be a placeholder at first—because real programmers don't do documentation ;) —but then that resource would be updated by users.

2. All of the help topics would be resources created and maintained online. Instead of being cold, static and becoming obsolete, all topics would be up-to-date and naturally integrated with the online user community.

3. Interested users could install HelpNDoc and modify the help file any way they like.

And now for the best part... The ideal place to host those online resources is right here. You would just create a new "Help" forum that contained a topic for each topic in the help file. The first post in each topic would be the "official" help contact, and would be maintained by moderators. Any user, however, would be able to post to these topics—to ask for clarification, suggest improvements to the topic, post their movies, whatever. I think this would be a great way to integrate the program with what goes on here, and make resources more accessible to all users.

I doubt there would be a flood of user-created documentation, but I can't imagine a system that would make it any easier for everyone to use and contribute to. I imagine each topic being an ongoing discussion—obviously some more active than others. It would be very easy for moderators to copy useful parts of messages posted to the topic and add them to the first post. Users wanting more information than is available in the first post can simply read on. If they still need help, they can post a question right there.

This, of course, begs the question, "What about the wiki?" Well, will version 1 coming and it not being actively maintained, I think we have reason to be concerned. While I very much appreciated the effort that went into it, I believe the lesson has been we really need to find ways to integrate things here. The existing content of the wiki can be used for the initial Help forum topics here.

CAD:

--- Quote ---This, of course, begs the question, "What about the wiki?"
--- End quote ---

I have developed a wiki at work (pmwiki).
I have used this to start to create an online help system, that has additional features, like ability to create PDF pages from wiki pages.
see: http://www.videodb.info/forum_en/index.php?topic=1692.msg7736#msg7736
(I can provide my wiki with what I have done if anyone is interested - I don't have the facilities to host any anything)

I researched tiki wiki and it seems to be missing these features amongst others.
Is it feasible / warranted to change current wiki to another one that has extra features.

Who owns the current wiki? How would they feel about a rewrite to make it more PVD centric or changing to a different wiki?

I don't know how using HelpNDoc would work as there would need to be someone central to maintain the master copy.

rick.ca:
The whole point of what I'm suggesting is to provide a way to effectively integrate the program, this forum and helpful documentation of any form. Wiki software that allows the creation of PDF documents does nothing to address the issue. Configuring the wiki (or any alternative wiki) to be "more PVD centric" (whatever that means) does nothing to address the issue. Using SMF (once 2.0 is released [Edit:] I was mistaken in believing this was a new SMF 2.0 feature—t's available now, as stated below) to host documentation (as illustrated here) would provide much integration, but even that wouldn't address the most important aspect of the issue.


--- Quote ---Who owns the current wiki? How would they feel about a rewrite to make it more PVD centric or changing to a different wiki?
--- End quote ---

Nostra is the "owner." The creator and host, cwdean, has not been here for a year, and it's been even longer than that since he's logged into the wiki. That, combined with the fact the wiki is not being used much anyway, is the reason for my concern. It's been a useful experiment, but the unavoidable conclusion is that no wiki is going to work very well in our circumstances.


--- Quote ---I don't know how using HelpNDoc would work as there would need to be someone central to maintain the master copy.
--- End quote ---

HelpNDoc is not important. It's just a free tool available for creating compiled HTML help files. According to my proposal, the help file would only contain links from the program hooks to topics in a forum. They would be organized in a hierarchical manner—a table of contents. Other than that, it would be virtually maintenance-free. That, too, is a primary goal in what I'm suggesting. Unlike wikis, this would integrate perfectly into what we're already doing here, and would completely remove the requirement to maintain a separate facility. But most importantly, it would bring together all users in their help communications.

CAD:

--- Quote ---Configuring the wiki (or any alternative wiki) to be "more PVD centric" (whatever that means) does nothing to address the issue.
--- End quote ---

I disagree. I have had great success with developing a wiki in at work. It does need to be focused on its purpose for existing and needs someone to take ownership and drive it.


--- Quote ---more PVD centric" (whatever that means)
--- End quote ---
I mean by this, all the crap needs to be removed and content focused on PVD.
IMO -The wiki focus should be more of a Content Management System with wiki features.


--- Quote ---the help file would only contain links from the program hooks to topics in a forum. They would be organized in a hierarchical manner—a table of contents.
--- End quote ---
I see some flaws here:
* someone needs to maintain the links in the forum
* multiple posts would need to be maintained.
* users would need to wade through multiple posts to fin the information they are after.

Document management is always contentious. No one like writing "how to" doco.
From experience, I think a wiki style system would work. it needs to be focused and have features to do other stuff (like act as a CMS, produce pdfs etc). The forum still exists to discuss and fix etc, but when a solution is found, all the discussion is removed and the core solution is added to the wiki.

rick.ca:

--- Quote ---* someone needs to maintain the links in the forum
--- End quote ---

As I've explained twice, a topic would be created for each item in the help file. No maintenance is required.


--- Quote ---* multiple posts would need to be maintained.
--- End quote ---

If you're referring to the top post in each topic (the formal help topic), so what? How is this any different than the need to maintain multiple wiki topics—except it would be integrated with the forum and therefore much easier. If a discussion indicates a revision to a help topic is required, which do you think is more likely to happen: (1) a moderator (who is likely participating in the discussion) edits the top post of the topic in which the discussion is taking place, or (2) somebody finds the topic in a separate wiki and makes the change? ::)


--- Quote ---* users would need to wade through multiple posts to fin the information they are after.
--- End quote ---

No, they would not. A help topic would link directly to the top post in the topic. Since that topic is regularly updated to reflect important material as it comes up in the discussion, they probably don't need to look further. But, if they do need more information (or simply want to see what other users have had to say or ask about the topic), they can read on.


--- Quote ---The forum still exists to discuss and fix etc, but when a solution is found, all the discussion is removed and the core solution is added to the wiki.
--- End quote ---

And I'm suggesting a method of combining the process into one integrated system so that it will be more effective, easier to use—and therefore much more likely to actually work.

I appreciate you may simply prefer the idea of a wiki, but that's not the purpose of this topic. I'm looking for feedback on a specific proposal. I don't care if you're inclined to conclude a wiki would be a better choice, but you're dismissing the proposal without due consideration. I think the idea is worthy of consideration. The alternative of a wiki has not only had lots of consideration, but an actual trial. Maybe another attempt wouldn't fail, but we need to consider carefully why it did fail—and alternatives that might work better.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page