Help talk:Menu

Plan A - open for comments [20 December 2016]

Here is a stab at re-organizing the Help namespace and updating the page designs. I am doing this here, since I am still unable to edit pages in the sandbox (so strange?). Please consider this a working copy and feel free to comment, discuss, edit and try things out.

These pages are intended to be an example of what could be done. After giving this a lot of thought, I decided to go ahead and emulate the same organizational structure that Wikipedia uses for their Help pages. I like the simplified page design and use of menus to easily direct users to the information without having to scroll through a lot of text. The idea (as others have said before) is that it should never take more than 2-3 clicks to reach the exact information you seek. It is also important to remember to take a step back and to review the pages with a new user in mind, especially one who has no previous wiki experience.

I have only created 2 of the subpages for now:

• Help:Menu/Navigating WeRelate and
• Help:Menu/Policies and guidelines

just to show what they could look like. Most other page links are still red, as they await some decisions on their title or whether to create a new page or redirect/reuse/merge one that already exists.

We might also want to consider the possibility of leaving old Help as is and creating an entirely new Help for those that wish to use it. I'm sure some will have a lot of criticism, no matter what we do, so leaving them with the ability to access old Help might be best.

Below the menu, please note that I have attempted to sort the existing Help page headers/links and those that you (DataAnalyst) proposed into meaningful groups under the new menu headings. I struggled with this because I actually like the way some of the old Help:Contents page is organized, especially Section 7 Namespaces. Some of that page is well done, but it seems as if some sections were never completed and the links can take you to other confusing or contradicting Help pages.

So... organization is where I think we should concentrate our efforts now - to decide what makes the most sense and how the existing Help pages fit into the plan. WeRelate suffers from a bad case of Instruction creep, so I would really like to see us simplify, consolidate, and outsource as much as possible. I realize that this rough draft is showing a lot of new pages to be created, but that is only because I was more focused on getting something up and running at this stage. I fully intend to consolidate those red links, if we proceed with this plan.

Regarding the design, each page consists of two parts:

1. Template:Help pages header to be placed on most Help pages to allow for quick navigation. It is designed mostly to help new users get around.
2. The Menu box - with Help:Menu as the top level "umbrella"

Please let me know your thoughts on proceeding with a plan like this. Regards, --cos1776 04:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd say you beat me to it. I was planning on reconciling my new menu approach with existing help pages to identify what we can reuse, what needs consolidating, and what needs to be written as new. You have reconciled your menu at the Table of Contents level. I'd like to do it at the Help page level as well, since the old Table of Contents had some duplication (links to the same Help page).

I will tentatively say that I like your approach - given that I am a touch unsure of how you envision it. However, I do note that it is still 2 clicks to get to an actual help page, whereas I think we could reduce that to 1 click and I see that Wikipedia Help does it in 1 click. Maybe once we have organized and developed the help pages, we can decide whether or not the main Help Menu page has direct links to all (major) help pages. (This is not really a major issue - the content and organization is much more important.)

I have a few suggestions for re-organization - I will put these right on the page itself because they will be easier to see in context. I'm sure this will evolve as I review and reconcile everything.

I assume that my suggestion for how to handle "conventions" fits into this structure - the Style Manual would simply be the collection of all conventions (which we can organize as needed on the Style Manual page). I envision the Style Manual being a page that includes the Quick Reference from each convention page, plus a link to the full convention page. We'll see how that works.

In terms of setting up an entirely new parallel help vs. gradually modifying the existing one - I'd like to think some more about that. I'd like to keep this new work-in-progress place, but we might want to link to some existing Help pages and tweak them to bring them up-to-date, rather than creating new copies with similar names. I don't think we'll get push-back on "how-to" instructions. We will get more push-back on conventions - but if we follow my suggestion, those will all be new pages anyway.

Regarding conventions, my thinking is that the role of the Overview Committee is two-fold:

To ensure that new conventions are not set nor existing conventions changed without sufficient opportunity for feedback from the WeRelate community.

To decide when to draw the feedback/consultation process to a close with a statement of where we ended up. That is, recognizing when reasonable consensus has been reached and restating what that consensus is, while attempting to address (and if possible, accommodate) dissenting opinions. (I'm of the opinion that we'll never get everyone to follow a single set of "rules" anyway, so maybe there is room for some alternatives in conventions, except where we plan to automate them like dates).

Give me a few days to reconcile this with existing Help and any new ideas I bring to the table. I'll provide my feedback and start growing/revising pages here rather than in the Sandbox - I thought it was time to switch anyway.

Sorry to go silent on you. I still have kids at home, so afternoon/evenings can get hectic. I'm glad to see that the basic plan became a little clearer. It sounds like we are on the same page, more or less. I agree that the rest of the Help pages should be sorted into the mix - just hadn't gotten there yet. I actually believe that most of the content we'll end up using already exists, but it might be grouped in a different way. As you can see, most sub-menus are still just buckets that I sorted the existing pages into - there is no organization or order there yet. I will probably add in some suggested headings to these over the next few days.

I gave a little spiel about conventions vs. policy statements on the WROC talk page for this project, but understandably it gets confusing to hold discussions in multiple locations, so just to make sure I understand your proposal, can you tell me what your definition of a convention is? and how it differs from a policy (enforceable) or guideline (not enforceable)? In the working list, I put some things that I thought might need a policy set, but naturally all of these should be flushed out. And, as you said, some will never follow the policy anyway, so how will non-adherence affect the integrity of the database? And if it doesn't have any effect, do we really need a policy?

I would say that policies are the things we have already identified as policies (no living individuals, privacy policy, terms and conditions, no abuse) - big picture things. Also, if you think we can set up and execute on dispute resolution policies, those would be policies as well.

I don't see a distinction between guidelines and conventions, other than that I believe the word "convention" carries a bit more weight - as in, "this is how we do things here". They are not enforceable, and, since I know you have been going through old GEDCOMs, I'm sure you realize that the chances of them even being applied a majority of the time seems poor. But we can define them as conventions for those who want to follow a consistent style and for those who want to clean up existing pages so that they follow a consistent style.--DataAnalyst 18:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok... clearly enough for tonight... --cos1776 05:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Round One edits [20 December 2016]

Nicely done! I'm going to need a little time to compare side by side and digest and give input. Did you make it all the way through the remaining Help pages or are there still some to be reviewed and sorted? --cos1776 17:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I completed reconciling to all existing Help pages, except for ones that will be addressed in Advanced Features (where I at least mentioned all topics) and anything that belongs in the Administrator's Guide (e.g., reviewing GEDCOMs as an administrator, monitoring recent changes). I think the Admin Guide needs a separate mini-project. So, yes, I think my revised menu covers everything.

You'll note the extensive notes in some cases - this is to ensure focus (so we don't cover the same material in more than one topic) and completeness. By doing this all in 2 days, I am hoping I did not include the same material in more than one place (except through inclusions).--DataAnalyst 18:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's talk videos [20 December 2016]

I spent some time re-watching these over the last day or two. I think for most, the audio may still be fine, but many screenshots are outdated. It was kind of funny to see how far we've come in 8-9 years from when wikis were still very new, to now, when the wiki concept is pretty well-known and understood (I think so anyway). My high school son may be able to help us edit each one to update the screenshots while still retaining some or all of the audio or to redo them completely. I would also like to add some sort of visit tracker to see how much they are actually being viewed over time. I'll look into some options. Do you have any specific concerns about the videos? --cos1776 17:25, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I assume you are talking about the videos that I excluded - the ones that explain "how to". My only real concern about them (other than the effort to recreate/update them) is the ongoing need to keep them up-to-date and ensure they are consistent with the text instructions. If you have the resources to update them, I'm fine with that. I would rather focus on the text instructions, but I know that some people prefer to watch and listen than to read. We might want to do the text instructions first (with possibly multiple rounds of review/editing) to minimize rework on the videos.

The videos I did include (e.g., overview, tour, why join us) I think are pretty good and don't necessarily need a refresh - although if you see a screen shot you'd like to swap out, go for it.--DataAnalyst 18:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Finalizing submenu titles and moving working outlines to submenu pages [26 January 2017]

Hello - Happy New Year! I moved 2 of our working outlines to their respective submenu pages, so we can finalize the structure there. I chose "Navigating WeRelate" and "Our community" since I think we are both in agreement with the titles and content for these two. Nothing was eliminated from your last revisions, but some things were moved around. Both are ready for your next review of the structure. Before I continue moving outlines, let's hash out the other submenu titles to make sure we both agree.

• Getting started moved - ready for review
• Creating and editing pages moved - work in progress
• Sources and links Source pages moved - ready for review
• Places Place pages moved - ready for review
• Images and media pages moved - ready for review
• Policies and guidelines conventions

I have been stalling work on this section because I feel bad that you have become so heavily vested in the Conventions approach, and I am not fully on board with it in the present configuration. Can we discuss this some more (perhaps on Help:Conventions or WROC, if you'd prefer)? I think that we can come to an agreement on it with some minor adjustments.

• Asking questions moved - work in progress - need to agree on FAQ organization/structure before getting into page details

• Merging pages

I would vote for these content links to be located on the "Advanced features" submenu. Is there a special reason why you wanted it to have a separate submenu?

• Working with Family trees and GEDCOMs

I'm fine with this title. How about you?

C: given our latest discussions, it makes more sense to combine GEDCOM and "working-with-trees" content here and revise title accordingly. Do you agree?

• Advanced features moved - ready for review

--cos1776 21:52, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
UPDATED: --cos1776 15:05, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
UPDATED: --cos1776 23:41, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
UPDATED: --cos1776 22:52, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Reminders for overall project [7 January 2017]

A spot to gather specific pending ToDo items, so they are not forgotten --cos1776 14:42, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Code changes [7 January 2017]

1. Change "Family tree" on P&F pages to "Pedigree"
2. Change "Pedigree-Map" in left menu to "Charts & Maps" (or "Maps & Charts")