Thread: New "function tables" in V13 documentation
In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on Reddit whether the new format of presenting functionsin V13 is a step backwards: https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/ Thomas
On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on > Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step > backwards: > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/ Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old format. > > > Thomas > > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 02:54, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:
> In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on
> Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step
> backwards:
>
>
> https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/
Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again
that plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the
old format.
>
>
> Thomas
>
>
--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
Agreed, old format much more readable.
On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote: > On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: > > In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on > > Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step > > backwards: > > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/ > > Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that > plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step > backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old > format. The person who made that comment retracted later. If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to the old format.
On 11/9/20 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote: > >> On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote: >>> In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on >>> Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step >>> backwards: >>> >>> https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/ >> >> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that >> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step >> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old >> format. > > The person who made that comment retracted later. > > If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can > discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to > the old format. Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to discussion? -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 2020-Nov-09, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can > > discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to > > the old format. > > Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to > discussion? Because the old format had problems.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:33 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 11/9/20 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
> the old format.
Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to
discussion?
More usefully, the current format and content changes are not going to be "reverted" so "going back" is not really an option. If you want to propose a patch for moving forward to a new format that is similar to the old one while retaining the content changes that would be a possible way forward.
David J.
po 9. 11. 2020 v 21:35 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> napsal: > > On 2020-Nov-09, Adrian Klaver wrote: > > > > If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can > > > discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to > > > the old format. > > > > Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to > > discussion? > > Because the old format had problems. The new format has problems as well. I was thinking about reviving old format conditionally (based on css media queries) to wide screens, and use current format on mobile-like screen widths. But it is not clear for me what exactly was the problem with the old format. Is there any discussion anyone can point me to to ensure I'll not just revive the old problems, but improve the overall situation? > >
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
>> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
>> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
>> format.
> The person who made that comment retracted later.
> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
> the old format.
I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
>> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
>> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
>> format.
> The person who made that comment retracted later.
> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
> the old format.
I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.
My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly skim the table to find out what is present since there is considerable extra information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be skimmed over.
My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.
David J.
On 11/9/20 12:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote: > On 2020-Nov-09, Adrian Klaver wrote: > >>> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can >>> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to >>> the old format. >> >> Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to >> discussion? > > Because the old format had problems. That reply is about as useful as the 'improvements'. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZWYgxaBpbcOhbmVr?= <josef.simanek@gmail.com> writes: > But it is not clear for me what exactly was the problem with the old > format. Is there any discussion anyone can point me to to ensure I'll > not just revive the old problems, but improve the overall situation? The primary discussion threads for this change were https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/9326.1581457869%40sss.pgh.pa.us https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/8691.1586798003%40sss.pgh.pa.us There are a lot of older threads about content (not layout) deficiencies in our docs that were practically impossible to fix under the old format; here's one: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/158110996889.1089.4224139874633222837%40wrigleys.postgresql.org regards, tom lane
On 11/9/20 2:47 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
This is what TOCs are for, no?
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
>> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
>> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
>> format.
> The person who made that comment retracted later.
> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
> the old format.
I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly skim the table to find out what is present since there is considerable extra information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be skimmed over.My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.
This is what TOCs are for, no?
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.
This is what TOCs are for, no?
Are you criticizing my over-explanation of the phrase "table of contents" here?
David J.
On 11/9/20 3:05 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
Why do you think that?
I'm agreeing this is why TOCs were invented.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.
This is what TOCs are for, no?Are you criticizing my over-explanation of the phrase "table of contents" here?
Why do you think that?
I'm agreeing this is why TOCs were invented.
--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:30 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:
On 11/9/20 3:05 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.
This is what TOCs are for, no?Are you criticizing my over-explanation of the phrase "table of contents" here?
Why do you think that?
I'm agreeing this is why TOCs were invented.
Because agreement without elaboration usually just merits a +1 so I read more into the statement than you intended.
David J.
On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:57 PM Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net> wrote: > > In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on Reddit whether the new format of presenting functionsin V13 is a step backwards: > > https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/ It's more than a little ironic that reddit's "old" format (still visible via old.reddit.com) is objectively clearer and better along exactly the same lines. merlin
On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 07:46:21PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote: > On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:57 PM Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net> wrote: > > > > In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on Reddit whether the new format of presenting functionsin V13 is a step backwards: > > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/ > > It's more than a little ironic that reddit's "old" format (still > visible via old.reddit.com) is objectively clearer and better along > exactly the same lines. I think it is funny that the Redit thread thinks we made the format change because of mobile, but it was actually more for PDF output, which is more old-school than even web pages. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee
>From: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> >On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >Alvaro Herrera <mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >> On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote: >>> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that >>> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step >>> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old >>> format. >> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can >> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to >> the old format. >>I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case >>where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation. >>I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables >>that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of >>such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical >>functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used >>to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in >>footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice. >My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly skim the table to find out what is present sincethere is considerable extra information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be skimmed over. I'm slow to the party, but I'm going to go with the new format is horrible. I agree with David that you can't quickly scandown the new table to find things like the return type (for example) which is something I do frequently. Go to the stringfuncs/ops page in v13, and try to quickly find the ones that return an "int" (because your goal is to find the positionof something in a string so you know the return value will have to be an "int"). The new version makes that hardwhile the old version is easy. In fact, I couldn't even find the return type at first when I looked because there isno label (the power of tables with headers was removed). The description and example also run together under the new format, which sort of comes across as a "wall of text". If Ireally zoom in, I can see they're different fonts, but at my normal zoom level they look pretty much the same at first glance. This makes me want to stay on v12.x for as long as possible -- really. If the maintainers are dead-set on maintaining the new format despite it drawbacks (and after reading all the other commentsabout the positives I'm going to say I don't see any positives**), then it'd be extremely helpful to do some CSSmagic to make them easier to read. Personally, I'd like to see there be a setting for if media is HTML that it show theold table format, but if not, here's some ideas to make the new format more palatable: * The return type needs to stand out a LOT more, bold would be a great start, adding color would help too. * Make the description and example look much more different, again color or perhaps color banding (background a light grayor something on the example). * Make the example code and example results more different, the simple "->" between them gets lost easily to my eye so it'sharder to read as is. * Can you add a few more classes to identify the parts betters in the tables? For example, I see the CSS class "returnvalue"on the example result, but there is nothing on the example code itself identifying it as such. If you did thisbetter labeling then perhaps those of us who are complaining could attempt to overcome some of our objections by restylingthe tables with colors & fonts & such. Not a full solution as that would require manipulating the DOM, but evensmall changes with color could bring large relief. [** I think it was Bruce who pointed out the old table format was troublesome in the PDF format. I concede that and anythingelse for when you're constrained to paper. But I suspect most users look at these docs on a computer monitor withHTML so those size constraints aren't an issue there. Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those userson larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right margins are so wide half of your screen is wastedinstead of letting the text flow and resize).] Kevin This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, youare hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, review, copy or use of any of the information contained in or attachedto this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notifyus by reply e-mail, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them todisk. Thank you.
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kevin Brannen <KBrannen@efji.com> wrote:
Go to the string funcs/ops page in v13, and try to quickly find the ones that return an "int" (because your goal is to find the position of something in a string so you know the return value will have to be an "int").
That is not something I considered...I figured people would look for a name that seems to reflect "position" or "in_string". I've never felt the need to search based upon return type.
Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those users on larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right margins are so wide half of your screen is wasted instead of letting the text flow and resize).]
It is just as bad it is so wide that one has to move their head instead of just moving their eyes. If anything our tables could probably be improved by enforcing a maximum width to the content area.
David J.
On 11/13/20 11:20 AM, Kevin Brannen wrote: >> From: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com> > >> On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera <mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: >>> On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote: >>>> Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that >>>> plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step >>>> backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old >>>> format. > >>> If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can >>> discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to >>> the old format. > >>> I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case >>> where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation. >>> I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables >>> that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of >>> such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical >>> functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used >>> to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in >>> footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice. > >> My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly skim the table to find out what is present sincethere is considerable extra information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be skimmed over. > > > I'm slow to the party, but I'm going to go with the new format is horrible. I agree with David that you can't quickly scandown the new table to find things like the return type (for example) which is something I do frequently. Go to the stringfuncs/ops page in v13, and try to quickly find the ones that return an "int" (because your goal is to find the positionof something in a string so you know the return value will have to be an "int"). The new version makes that hardwhile the old version is easy. In fact, I couldn't even find the return type at first when I looked because there isno label (the power of tables with headers was removed). > > The description and example also run together under the new format, which sort of comes across as a "wall of text". IfI really zoom in, I can see they're different fonts, but at my normal zoom level they look pretty much the same at firstglance. +1 > > This makes me want to stay on v12.x for as long as possible -- really. Second the motion. > > If the maintainers are dead-set on maintaining the new format despite it drawbacks (and after reading all the other commentsabout the positives I'm going to say I don't see any positives**), then it'd be extremely helpful to do some CSSmagic to make them easier to read. Personally, I'd like to see there be a setting for if media is HTML that it show theold table format, but if not, here's some ideas to make the new format more palatable: > > * The return type needs to stand out a LOT more, bold would be a great start, adding color would help too. > > * Make the description and example look much more different, again color or perhaps color banding (background a light grayor something on the example). > > * Make the example code and example results more different, the simple "->" between them gets lost easily to my eye soit's harder to read as is. > > * Can you add a few more classes to identify the parts betters in the tables? For example, I see the CSS class "returnvalue"on the example result, but there is nothing on the example code itself identifying it as such. If you did thisbetter labeling then perhaps those of us who are complaining could attempt to overcome some of our objections by restylingthe tables with colors & fonts & such. Not a full solution as that would require manipulating the DOM, but evensmall changes with color could bring large relief. > > [** I think it was Bruce who pointed out the old table format was troublesome in the PDF format. I concede that and anythingelse for when you're constrained to paper. But I suspect most users look at these docs on a computer monitor withHTML so those size constraints aren't an issue there. Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those userson larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right margins are so wide half of your screen is wastedinstead of letting the text flow and resize).] > > Kevin > This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidentialinformation. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intendedrecipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, review, copy or use of any of the informationcontained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error,please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without readingthem or saving them to disk. Thank you. > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 11/13/20 11:30 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kevin Brannen <KBrannen@efji.com > <mailto:KBrannen@efji.com>> wrote: > > Go to the string funcs/ops page in v13, and try to quickly find the > ones that return an "int" (because your goal is to find the position > of something in a string so you know the return value will have to > be an "int"). > > > That is not something I considered...I figured people would look for a > name that seems to reflect "position" or "in_string". I've never felt > the need to search based upon return type. Which is an indication that for changes of this scope it would be prudent to create a mock up and have end users see and comment on before rolling them out. > > Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those users on > larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right > margins are so wide half of your screen is wasted instead of letting > the text flow and resize).] > > > It is just as bad it is so wide that one has to move their head instead > of just moving their eyes. If anything our tables could probably be > improved by enforcing a maximum width to the content area. > > David J. > -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
>From: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>
>>On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kevin Brannen <mailto:KBrannen@efji.com> wrote:
>>Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those users on larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right margins are so wide half of your screen is wasted instead of letting the text flow and resize).]
>It is just as bad it is so wide that one has to move their head instead of just moving their eyes. If anything our tables could probably be improved by enforcing a maximum width to the content area.
True on moving heads is harder, but we have the option of making the browser narrower to compensate
if we feel the need. When there are max width constraints then the option to customize is taken out
of the user's hands and that's an issue. Let the user do what works best for them. Some flexibility
doesn't seem like to much to ask for...IMO.
I really don't expect the old tables to come back, as much as I'd like that, because groups rarely backtrack
or so my experience has been. However, this is also why I made the suggestions I did, especially the
last one about adding more CSS classes to let the users restyle if they feel strongly enough about it.
Maybe this works for most people:
upper ( text ) → text
Converts the string to all upper case, according to the rules of the database's locale.
upper('tom') → TOM
By why not let people do:
upper ( text ) → text
Converts the string to all upper case, according to the rules of the database's locale.
upper('tom') → TOM
[For those that don’t receive HTML in email, the function is bold, the return type is underlined,
the example has a light gray background, and the example result has a light blue background.]
I don’t know that I’d really do it that way, but the CSS required for that isn’t hard yet it makes
the parts stand out a lot better so I know what is what. The current docs are only missing 3 CSS
classes to allow me to do that: the description, the example code, and the example return (since it
uses the same class as the function return value). I can’t imagine that would be so hard to do.
I don’t see myself contributing to the Pg code base, but this is something I might could do and
should look into.
Kevin
On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:48 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
Which is an indication that for changes of this scope it would be
prudent to create a mock up and have end users see and comment on before
rolling them out.
There were mockups and people did provide comments. Do you have any concrete suggestions on what should have been done, or done differently?
David J.
On 11/14/20 8:24 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:48 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote: > > Which is an indication that for changes of this scope it would be > prudent to create a mock up and have end users see and comment on > before > rolling them out. > > > There were mockups and people did provide comments. Do you have any Where were they announced and when? > concrete suggestions on what should have been done, or done differently? Yes my concrete suggestion was a return to previous layout. It was rejected out of hand. I still think that the previous layout is a significant improvement over the current layout. Namely, you could see more and pick out the information quicker. The current setup is as Kevin said an amorphous 'wall of text'. Losing the columns was a big mistake, they should be returned. > > David J. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 9:39 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> wrote:
On 11/14/20 8:24 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:48 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
> <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote:
>
> Which is an indication that for changes of this scope it would be
> prudent to create a mock up and have end users see and comment on
> before
> rolling them out.
>
>
> There were mockups and people did provide comments. Do you have any
Where were they announced and when?
Starting back in February.
The first commit was applied in April.
> concrete suggestions on what should have been done, or done differently?
Yes my concrete suggestion was a return to previous layout.
I am referring to the process by which the idea to change the documentation layout was made public so people could review it (see above).
In hindsight it could have been handled better. Waiting longer at different points and making pronouncements on -announce to solicit feedback from people who don't follow -docs. That doesn't change the fact that we need to move forward with a new patch to "fix" things. If the agreement is that fix looks a lot like the old format then so be it. But getting there by reverting doesn't seem doable.
David J.
On 11/14/20 8:24 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:48 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote: > > Which is an indication that for changes of this scope it would be > prudent to create a mock up and have end users see and comment on > before > rolling them out. > > > There were mockups and people did provide comments. Do you have any Just realized the mockups would have been in the devel version of the docs. I will have to admit to not looking at those as I don't usually follow that until they become the final release docs. My mistake and I will pay more attention in the future. > concrete suggestions on what should have been done, or done differently? > > David J. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
On 11/15/20 9:00 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > On Sun, Nov 15, 2020 at 9:39 AM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>> wrote: > > On 11/14/20 8:24 PM, David G. Johnston wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 1:48 PM Adrian Klaver > <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> > > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com > <mailto:adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>>> wrote: > > > > Which is an indication that for changes of this scope it would be > > prudent to create a mock up and have end users see and comment on > > before > > rolling them out. > > > > > > There were mockups and people did provide comments. Do you have any > > Where were they announced and when? > > > Starting back in February. > > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9326.1581457869@sss.pgh.pa.us > <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/9326.1581457869@sss.pgh.pa.us> > > The first commit was applied in April. > > > > concrete suggestions on what should have been done, or done > differently? > > Yes my concrete suggestion was a return to previous layout. > > > I am referring to the process by which the idea to change the > documentation layout was made public so people could review it (see above). > > In hindsight it could have been handled better. Waiting longer at > different points and making pronouncements on -announce to solicit > feedback from people who don't follow -docs. That doesn't change the Yes and at least one post to --general. It would have motivated me to look at the new docs earlier. > fact that we need to move forward with a new patch to "fix" things. If > the agreement is that fix looks a lot like the old format then so be > it. But getting there by reverting doesn't seem doable. The method does not matter to me the layout does. > > David J. -- Adrian Klaver adrian.klaver@aklaver.com
>From: Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com> >>On 11/15/20 9:00 AM, David G. Johnston wrote: > >> In hindsight it could have been handled better. Waiting longer at >> different points and making pronouncements on -announce to solicit >> feedback from people who don't follow -docs. That doesn't change the > Yes and at least one post to --general. It would have motivated me to look at the new docs earlier. +1 on the post to -general. FWIW... My attention to -announce is lazy but I'd see that eventually. I get a little behind on -general from time to time,but this is where I pay the most attention. I have no idea where most people are, perhaps the list maintainers couldgive some guidance on that. HTH, Kevin This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information.If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, youare hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, review, copy or use of any of the information contained in or attachedto this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notifyus by reply e-mail, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them todisk. Thank you.