hes@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:
> > - Does the current static question/answer format solve the needs today ?
>
> I don't think so. When people are vitally interested in something,
> they just might read through a 1000+ line FAQ, but I don't think that
> most people will do that. In our FAQ we tried to made it a bit easier
> by listing all the Questions at the beginning, and then answering them
> in order (this is common practice) but I've often wondered if there is a
> better way.
I maintain a small assortment of FAQs and online references, and I try
to make the web-based versions friendlier and more easily navigable
through the use of a table of contents section with links into the document
and, where appropriate, hyperlinked terms and "see also" sections that may
be selected to take the reader to definitions and supplementary material.
That seems particularly relevant when maintaining several related documents
or resources--so, for example, the "Weightlifting and exercise dictionary"
at
http://www.trygve.com/weightsglossary.html has extensive links between
terms used in the text and their definitions, and both to and from the
misc.fitness.weights FAQ ( http://www.trygve.com/mfw_faq.html ).
> >... With the brave new world of point
> >and click access to the Internet, textual copies of faqs, posted to a
> >*.answers newsgroup are not reaching as many as would be expected.
> >
> > - How can people without Usenet access contributed ?
> > - How do sites deal with web based versions ?
I had an idea about that late last year, when I noticed that the namespace
corresponding to usenet newsgroups was almost entirely untouched; or,
at least that portion of namespace that didn't have "sex" in the title. So
I went ahead and registered newsgroup names with the intent of tying
them all together into a hierarchical web-based Usenet front end so the
new or old newsgroup reader would be immediately presented with a
description of the group with readily available pointers to FAQs, online
resources, archives, group homepages (where they exist), general posting
guidelines and etiquette, and related/unrelated groups (e.g.,
sci.bio.evolution
is not the place to discuss the creation vs. evolution debate, go to
talk.origins
instead).
Unfortunately, development has been hampered by time issues--an inevitable
problem when trying to coordinate a volunteer effort, so very little of it
is
implemented at this time. (I've got various people working on parts of it
that
they keep assuring me will be done RealSoonNow[tm].)
Even with little more than a "trial balloon" aloft at this point, the sheer
volume of traffic that I'm seeing from people new to the net typing
newsgroup names in their browsers' address field suggests to me that
the basic idea is a useful one. Once I get the page generation stuff
working and the databases more complete, I have hopes that it'll draw
in those new to Usenet and help reduce the noise level by making FAQs
and references more immediately and easily accessible to the readers.
With the caveat that it is incredibly sketchy at this point, to get an
idea of the basic format I'm thinking of, you can take a look at
http://www.1reader.com
or try typing the name of a newsgroup without punctuation or spaces
such as "talkorigins" which in many if not most browsers should
default to http://www.talkorigins.com
[
FAQ Archive |
Search FAQ Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet References
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997 |
1998 |
1999 |
2000
]
© Copyright The Internet FAQ Consortium, 1997-2000
All rights reserved