A new render of newxml

Ken Moffat ken at kenmoffat.uklinux.net
Mon May 3 04:56:56 PDT 2004


On Sun, 2 May 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:

> Ken Moffat said the following on 02-05-2004 18:23:
> >  Go away from the idea that "one way of reading" fits all.  If you are
> > following the book from A to Z in one go, then an inline "nochunks" or
> > text version is great, and links at the bottom are good.  If you are
> > coming back and can't quite remember where you got to, looking at the
> > start of a package and thinking "yes, did that, next:" may be more
> > appropriate.  There are lots of different reasons to visit or re-visit a
> > particular page.
>
> I never intended to argue a one-size fits all approach and I'm well
> aware that whatever the decision will be, it's a compromise. So, how can
> we achieve the best compromise? Here are my assumptions:
>
> 1. a large userbase has never/incidentally built an LFS system
> 2. thus we value close reading higher then skimming/scanning
> 3. a signifcant userbase will use text browsers

 Sure, I'm often using lynx, but I'm trying to learn to use a graphical
desktop.


> 4. the bottom navigation links are more useful then the top navigation
> links for close reading
> 5. the top navigation links are more useful then the bottom navigation
> links for skimming/scanning
> 6. we also offer <head> links and access keys, which serve the same
> function as the top & bottom navigation links

 I don't understand what you mean by "access keys" ?

> 7. there are other mechanisms for a reader to remember what he has done
> (eg. blue unvisited links, purple visited links)

But see item 3.

> 8. we should aim to make the book most usable for our goals with the
> book and our target audiences
>

Thin ice.  The book /also/ needs to be adequately usable for the whole
community, including everybody who looks up a page to give advice.

> >  Convention says that navigation at top and bottom of a page is usually
> > well-received, but I know better than to argue for something in LFS just
> > because it's conventional. :)
>
> Well, the problem isn't that a top navigation bar is not useful, but
> that it is not useful *enough* (based on the redundancy of links, shared
> functionality and inconvenience for text browsers) for most people.
>

 I don't understand why you want to remove these links.  How do they
worsen the book for the users in (1) and (2) ?  I am aware of many sites
where loads of links at the start cause a pain for users of text
browsers (point 3), but looking at jeremy's current rendering of the
newxml in lynx it all works pretty well - a title followed by named
links; page description surrounded by prev and next;  then straight into
the text.

Ken
-- 
 das eine Mal als Tragödie, das andere Mal als Farce




More information about the lfs-dev mailing list