From: Andy Davis <ananonana@...>
Date: 2011-08-06T05:03:39+09:00
Subject: Re: Brainstorming ideas how to improve Ruby's documentation

> Browse to the Ruby standard library with a non-frames, text-only
> browser. Screen readers don't do a much better job of parsing frames.
> And consider the linking nightmare.

Maybe I'm missing something, but the linking nightmare you mention can
easily be resolved with a script.  Isn't that their purpose -- to
automate the most mundane and easily-botched of routines?  Unless you're
hand-coding the files, I don't see why this is so difficult.

For people with eyesight problems I can understand using text-only
browsers (and certainly screen readers), but the solution need not be
one-approach only.  One script can generate frames (or menus), and
another can generate text-only pages.  Just because frames do not
address every problem does not mean they are invalid.

> And the RDoc generated documentation is in frame form because that's
> how RDoc originally outputted docs.
>

That still doesn't negate the fact that someone found frames useful at
some point.

>
>> Frames do serve a purpose, but maybe not for you.
>
> "If all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail."

You're stating an unwarranted extrapolation.  I never said frames were
the right solution for everyone.  I said that it has worked splendidly
for me in the past, and that I would recommend a similar style for Ruby
docs.  Again, the solution need to be comprised of a singular approach.

-- 
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/.