A new render of newxml
Bill's LFS Login
lfsbill at nospam.dot
Tue May 4 05:51:28 PDT 2004
On Sun, 2 May 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Ken Moffat said the following on 02-05-2004 18:23:
> > On Sun, 2 May 2004, Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> 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
If I understand what you mean here, I question its validity. I believe
most of our users have built more than once and a great number upgrade
> 2. thus we value close reading higher then skimming/scanning
I presume "value" means "assign more importance to" as an estimate of
what best serves our users? If so, is this a proper assignment? If most
users are "intermediate-to-advanced", *and* if we believe they build
more than once, then the likelihood of "skimming/scanning" increases.
> 3. a signifcant userbase will use text browsers
> 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
> 7. there are other mechanisms for a reader to remember what he has done
> (eg. blue unvisited links, purple visited links)
> 8. we should aim to make the book most usable for our goals with the
> book and our target audiences
See # 2 above?
> > 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.
"Inconvenience for text browsers"? Maybe it is not "inconvenient", but
only redundant? Not the same.
> > Ken
NOTE: I'm on a new ISP, if I'm in your address book ...
Fix line above & use it to mail me direct.
More information about the lfs-dev