>> From what I understand about Alfresco, the information could be better
>> presented there in the Discussion section of a site. There the areas of
>> discussion can be divided into separate topics. We can comment on one or
>> more topics that others will see in context.
>> At least this is how I think a Discussion section is suppose to work:
>> brainstorming while collaborating with others.
> Although that would be a good use of Alfresco's Discussion feature, it
> would effectively cut me out of any discussion when I am working on
> iPhone or iPad, without access to a computer. Unless, hmmm.... I must
> test the iPhone/iPad app for Alfresco to see if it would do the job.
> (Android version coming soon.)
I think that, at this stage, we could maybe store Dan's document in
the Docs section of the TDF wiki, perhaps on a new "Alfresco
brainstorming" page. I think tha it's useful to have a summary of the
discussions in this thread, but that Alfresco is not the best place to
store it at this stage, since some people are not at ease with it (a
LibreOffice Alfresco contributor's guide will be essential if Alfresco
is adopted as the team's working tool).
> The other problem with holding a discussion on Alfresco (as with any
> forum or other web-based program) is that people would need to go to
> the site to read and contribute, instead of having the discussion come
> to them. So there are pros and cons to doing it that way. Unless,
> hmmm... can individual Alfresco users choose to have notifications
> emailed to them when something new is posted on a topic?
Alfresco can easily be configured to send out email notifications when
events take place.
On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Jean Weber <[hidden email]> wrote:
> So I can get (horribly long and user-unfriendly) download links to
> different versions of a document and post those links on wiki or
> website or wherever. That still doesn't solve the problem of how
> people know, ONCE THE FILE IS DOWNLOADED TO THEIR COMPUTER, what
> version of LO it's for. I'm sure I'm not the only person who downloads
> user guides and then (an hour or a day or a month later) can't easily
> tell what software version they were were for.
Yes, the download links are hardly human-readable. This is certainly
something that advanced configuration of the Alfresco platform could
resolve, but - at present - one would have to live with this
As regards user guide versions and software versions, I'm not sure
whether the average end user faces the issue of having multple
versions on the same machine. Don't *most people* just stay up to date
with the latest version? As long as they have quick access to that
latest version, and an easy means of getting access to an index of
past versions, isn't that perhaps enough?
> What about people who want to go to, say, media.lo.org, browse around,
> and find individual chapters or books for a specific version of LO?
> (In other words, not following specific download links.) At the moment
> it's clear (by the directory structure: different folders for
> different LO versions) and the filenames. I don't understand how they
> will be able to tell this information if there is only one "Published"
> folder for each book, and one filename for each chapter.
If the guest is browsing directly on the Alfresco platform via
http://media.libreoffice.org, this problem could be solved fairly
easily through appropriate permissions configuration, so that the
anonymous guest gets only to see the Published folder, with whatever
content you want to be visible to them (you can achieve that
fine-grained control through document-specific permissions).
But, here again, proper information in documents' meta tags would let
people make an advised choice of what do download, and so maybe one
wouldn't need to constrain what content they see.
But there's nothing stopping us using the current folder structure,
and perhaps it's a good idea to stay with it since it's easier for
non-experts to comprehend.
> My questions are not just about how we, the Docs team, can work
> efficiently. Equally, or even more importantly, we need to consider
> how our consumers, the users, can easily find, identify, download,
> store and retrieve the docs they need.
In the former case, the advantage would be that you could avoid having
to do updating work on 3 sites when publishing a guide. You'd only
have to work directly on the Alfresco platform, and possibly set
visibility permissions on a per-folder or per-document basis.
> Another reason why different filenames for different LO versions are
> useful: when a user reports an error, they need to tell us which file
> it's in (or, in your system, which version of that file), because we
> need to know if it's an obsolete version or only applies to a specific
> version, etc.
Displaying version info stored in a document's meta tags would enable
users to be able to refer to a particular version of a document.
> Also, I don't understand how, if all the versions of a file (both
> drafts and published) are stored under one filename, we can tell which
> are the published versions vs the drafts.
Again, entering information in a document's meta tags would be the
solution. One just has to devise an appropriate set of meta tags.
Thanks for that, I think it's really useful to have this. But, as I
commented in another post, I reckon the TDF wiki might be a better
place to store it at this stage, possibly on a newly-created "Alfresco
Would that be something that you or, maybe, Tom might do? If not, I
might try to find time for it in the next week or 10 days, or when we
reach an appropriate point in the to-and-fro of questions and
On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 4:06 PM, Cedric Bosdonnat
<[hidden email]> wrote:
> We can setup some automatic rules to rename files in Alfresco... so both
> are possible, you all only need to agree on something ;)
Since you're an Alfresco consultant, please could you give us some of
your expertise and advice in respect of some of Jean's and the team's
other questions? Your POV would be valuable.