Re: Venting about docs

Jonathan Leffler wrote: > Fernando Nunes wrote: > >> Art S. Kagel wrote: >> >>> Since this is shaping up to be a slow posting day, I want to take the >>> opportunity to vent. >>> >>> For years Informix had award winning documentation and, while it took >>> me a while to get used to them when they first showed up in the >>> OL4.01 or OL5 docs, the railroad syntax diagrams were actually easy >>> to read and follow. The original PDFs, whether you like PDFs or not >>> (and I do), were easy enough to navigate with hot links in expected >>> places. So, why were the docs for IDS 9.40 and IDS 10.00 changed to >>> those hairy pseudo railroad diagrams with the footnote pointers to >>> get to hot links? The PDF files are now VERY difficult to navigate >>> and the changes did not make the HTML versions any better. >>> >>> I want my old docs back! Just my opinion. >>> >>> Anyone else got one on this topic? It's got to be better than "Is >>> DB2 dead?" or whatever that thread has morphed into. >>> >>> Art S. Kagel >> >> >> >> I totally agree with you. >> I'd love to move my customer to 10.00 but I fear the day when I must >> browse those books... Besides being a PITA to use they're even much >> uglier :) > > > If it's any consolation, I think the Tech Pubs (ID - Information > Development) people would agree - and the absence of the index letters > at the top of the index pages is a nuisance too. > > However, the reason for the change is so that the manuals can be handled > by automatic systems for the visually impaired - accessibility is the > jargon usually used. The railroad diagrams can, apparently, be handled > better than the much finer ones that used to be in the Informix manuals. > > IBM does a lot of work with the US federal government, and such things > are important to contracts with it. > Well, at least there's an explanation and it's for a good cause. I'll still hate working with them... :) Regards.