[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Documentation Metrics
On Oct 16, 10:26pm, Jorge Godoy wrote:
> Subject: Re: Documentation Metrics
>
> [...]
> DCMPD> Seriously, though, this information is not going to be
> DCMPD> publicized. It is for my personal use, and perhaps for
> DCMPD> a few others that help me. And, if the document is really
> DCMPD> awful, I have no problem saying so. One thing you can
> DCMPD> count on me for is being honest about our shortcomings.
> DCMPD> How else can we address them?
>
> If you don't mind, it would be interesting for an author to have
> access to this information on her/his HOWTO/document. This way people
> might know where they need to improve their document (besides
> content).
More than just "interesting". I thought that was one of the major
points of this exercise? How else do you propose we improve the
actual content?
We need to collect more than just metrics, I'd like to see
reviewer's comment on specific areas where they think the HOWTO
is lacking, how it might be improved, what it does well, etc.
This goes beyond a basic numeric scoring system.
I believe it's imperative that we syphon these comments,
good/bad/otherwise back to the original authors. David, how
did you see this being used otherwise?
r,
--
Greg Ferguson - s/w engr / mtlhd | gferg at sgi.com
SGI Tech Pubs - http://techpubs.sgi.com/ |
Linux Doc Project - http://www.linuxdoc.org/ | gferg at metalab.unc.edu
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]