-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 115
Initial fix for Issue #403 (Pl_Editor) #409
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
Moved and re-named sections without changing content; fixed link for page_property_2.png image.
I built your PR for Pl_editor to PDF, is that your structure, right ?
I agree your structure as I mentioned before https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-doc/issues/403#issuecomment-229249204 .
Do you mean "Basic layout elements" section should not be top of the doc, but should move to under "3 Adding elements" ?
This is a reference manual for Pl_editor, so available functionality should be described,
That might funny :-) Is there any good expressions for this ?
Do you want to add more interesting tips here ? Best regards, |
@kinichiro I understand what you mean, where 2 is about the interface and 3 is about doing something. I put Item Selection into section 2 because it applies to existing elements and not adding any elements. That still makes the most sense to me. Does anyone else have an opinion? 1 To me Basic Layout Elements can be removed. They each have their own subsection in section 3 and that existing chunk of text just didn't hold value for me. Any unique bits of text can find a different home elsewhere in the document. I kept the text to have this discussion instead of deleting it. 2 I feel the context menu is obvious and users don't need to have a separate section just to list the items there. When describing the functions of the tool elsewhere in the program the context menu will be covered without adding redundant text. 3 I should be more clear. Instead of: Should we have: Since the whole section is about adding, I think removing the extra "Adding" at the beginning of each section is acceptable. But if viewed section-by-section instead of the outline, it may be more confusing because the section title could be lost. I was conservative by keeping "Adding" but wanted everybody to chime in on their thoughts. So... what say ye? If we can approve this outline, with the section retention/removal and naming above, then I will dig into the meat of this document and update the text. |
@ciampix @kinichiro @nickoe |
Bump. This is very old and I apologize for this. I want to clear this up. I confess I did look into any of these improvement. Let's see to this and close this up! |
For a start I absolutely agree with point 1) ... |
For point 2 and 3 I prefer to leave things more verbose instead of concise even if there are some repetitions. For two reasons:
|
So, if it is possible to split the 1) from the 2) and 3) I will happily apply 1) |
For point 2 and 3 I prefer to leave things more verbose instead of concise even if there are some repetitions. For two reasons:
|
Moved and re-named sections without changing content; fixed link for page_property_2.png image.
Recall that, like PR #407 , only the section names and section flow should be reviewed now. I've made no effort to change the content of sections, but I will embark on that next with the goal being to avoid changing text (for translation reasons) where possible. Right now, just look at the sections and other patches will be submitted for content later before the PR is ready to merge.
My thoughts/questions: