Subject: Re: FAQ [was: Re: VOLUNTEER REQUEST]
From: dlairson@att.net
Date: Fri Aug 11 2000 - 10:57:33 EDT
I personally feel that a static faq is more user
friendly than an database driven one. A static FAQ
allows a new user to print out a complete copy of the
whole FAQ, it also allows us to post the complete FAQ as
an email message, newsgroup post etc.
just my $.02 adjuseted for inflation.
David Lairson
Network Support
-- "Hey You! Out of the Gene Pool!" > Faq-o-matic > > http://www.dartmouth.edu/~jonh/ff-serve/cache/1.html > > At 12:17 AM 08/11/2000 -0400, Bob Rogers wrote: > > From: BWS - Offwhite <brennan@offwhite.net> > > Date: Thu, 10 Aug 2000 22:39:46 -0500 (CDT) > > > > [ this is simply an idea up for suggestion ] > > > > I agree that the data should be structured and even stored in a > > database. That way we can use templates to display the content. An FAQ > > may consist of the following structure . . . > > > > Then a nice FAQ could be built dynamically with a script which accesses > > the database. If there are only 20 questions in the system, they would > > appear on the same page. If it gets to be much longer, it could display > > 20 per page. And then we can organize questions by category: file server, > > print server, installing, and trouble shooting . . . > > > > There are just so many options with a database and a couple creative > > scripters . . . > > > > Brennan Stehling - web developer and sys admin > > > >I would like to make a point that is perhaps obvious, but seems to be at > >risk of getting lost in the shuffle: > > > > I consider it very helpful to have some kind of user-visible absolute > >identifier for FAQ items, so that you can respond to a user's query with > >"Please see FAQ item XYZ." These identifiers should never change, so > >that archived responses to queries aren't made meaningless by subsequent > >FAQ updates. Organizing by category, as in "Please see FAQ item 7.2", > >certainly helps the update problem, since it's easy to add a new > >question and answer to the end of the category. > > > > Given all that, I fail to see the advantage of a DBMS implementation > >vs. old-fashioned static HTML, except perhaps in the initial entry phase > >with multiple distributed authorship. Perhaps this creativity could be > >better applied elsewhere? > > > > Just a peep from the peanut gallery . . . > > > > -- Bob Rogers > > -------------------------------------- > I labour to posses my soul > > -Izaak Walton > -------------------------------------- >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Wed Jan 17 2001 - 14:31:58 EST