|
|
Posted by dorayme on 09/26/06 21:34
In article
<1159269532.152990.203010@d34g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
usenet+2004@john.dunlop.name wrote:
> > http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/pics/mentioningTheMechani
> > csBigTime.png
>
> How about 'Publications' as the page heading and 'Brochures, Flyers,
> Pamphlets' as the second subheading? 'Downloadable documents' I find
> obvious and vague: obvious because anything available on the web is by
> that very fact downloadable, and vague because 'document' is a term
> used for all sorts of resources, e.g., PDF docs, HTML docs, RTF docs.
> 'Publications' covers both subheadings.
I did have it as Publications and changed it to cover other
things and possible future things, the nature of which I not know
now. Some things are not publications. This page (which is not
yet up, it is goes up officially in October I think) has but one
link to it from elsewhere, not part of any navigation and will be
used by organizations to refer people to it verbally or
otherwise. What you and I perceive is not always what users
perceive. I asked various people to try various things re this
page and they found this one the easiest to use without false
steps. But no doubt I will rearrange things to be less
objectionable to the principle of not mentioning the mechanics
>
> I'd omit the first sentence under the main heading and let the page
> speak for itself. I would leave a note that the resources are all PDFs
> if that is the only format they are in (the URL suffixes would be
> <.pdf>).*
Well, ideally, why even a note on this? After you have done with
the page, we will end up with a page that I initially drafted
that was not as helpful as this "flawed page" That's what the
worry is, John.
> * Ideally, I would have different formats, allowing content negotiation
> to serve the resource in the most preferred format.
Ideally...
>I'd omit the last two sentences of the first paragraph. The
> last one is dubious because there is nothing preventing a browser from
> presenting PDFs.
>
The last one is true, rather than dubious. It is to head off any
idea that these docs are part of the normally viewable or
accessible website.
> The text under 'How to access these documents' reads like it is trying
> to accommodate everyone.
I am doing the best I can!
> As a result, it contains little specific
> instruction.
How do you get more specific than right click and save... by even
more words... even I have limits!
> I would remove the entire section or at least drastically
> cut it down. For example, in the first paragraph of the page you
> mention PDFs. You could make 'PDF' a link to a page about PDFs,
> rendering the need to explain how to read PDFs unnecessary.
>
I don't know about this? This is really being a slave to a
principle without practical sense. I would rather say a few
things occasionally to save people chasing off elsewhere.
But thank you for your remarks. The fact is that when getting
into this whole business one is spending lots of time rearranging
things, trying this and that, and time is not always on the side
of principle. I am not saying it is a bad principle and I think I
gave you one of the very few examples, the worst, in my zoo. Here
is another, done in response to various queries, the queries said
to be satisfied now (this one has been operating for ages live):
http://members.optushome.com.au/droovies/pics/MentioningMechanics2
..png
--
dorayme
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|