Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

Sorry... Looking at the wiki page late in the game... Are we now doing complete edits of the text? It appears that the original text is posted and the "Notes" text is an exact copy. Which chapters are actually complete at this point?

Edit: Ah, ok... The sections with signatures are the completed one. Sorry.

Thanks,
Tim

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

There was me thinking that link referred to "a game of bingo gone horribly wrong"...

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

Question: Are we being asked to provide better section titles as well? Or just body text?

Tim

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

All right... I've just completed a few chapters. I didn't change any section names, although I wanted to. More later.

Tim

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

Hi guys,

I'm Joaquim Rocha, one of the authors of Hildon HIG and I wanted to say I really appreciate the effort you're doing on reviewing the HIG's English.

I must also say I hadn't replied yet to this thread because some of the comments and attitudes expressed here that really made me sad. I and Iván put a lot of effort into the documentation and while there is, of course, room for improvement, I think it is not as bad as people have been saying here. The whole project from the beginning was intended to be just an initial draft from which things should be improved and fine tuned.
I think the comments towards our nationalities are pretty sad as well. Some of you started by saying the docs were written in Finlish, then turned to Spanglish when I'm not even Spanish. Iván is Spanish and I think that "Spanglish" really puts down one's work and effort on doing something write.
It is clear to me that some people like to criticize for free and in a negative way with all the safety and easiness of the ol'internet, instead of improving what's actually wrong.

Having said that, I need to thank Dave Neary for opening this thread and encouraging me to reply. Thank you to all the people who have been working to improve the documentation. We appreciate it.

Cheers,

--
Joaquim Rocha

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

Your efforts are appreciated, and it wasn't clear that you and Iván has been doing so much in your spare time.

Negative comments aren't directed at the author - but at Nokia for under-investing in such a core deliverable for a consistent platform. Human interface guidelines have never been well invested in, despite numerous offers to do so over the past 4 years.

Finally, FWIW, "Finglish" is a term which has been used a number of times on #maemo to describe the text which oftens comes out of Nokia's delivered applications and is meant in a fun - not derogatory - way.

It's not clear why it should be proof-read for free, when it wasn't produced in a collaborative manner (although the community will, because it benefits being clear). For example, if a reviewer disagrees with a point, can that be changed? I doubt it, as this will have evolved out of Nokia's "UI Specifcations" (and one would hope Nokia's apps are consistent with it).

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

These are really good points. And, as one of the contributors to the proof reading, I must say that there are several areas that I feel should be reconfigured, rewritten, and/or rethought. This has nothing to do with the amount of hard work that was put into the original document. It's just that some items appear not to have enough context or they weren't thought out completely.

If we can make suggested changes to content (and not just vocabulary and grammar), please let me know, as I would love to help out.

Thanks!
Tim

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

Nevertheless, all work is done by individuals, so when something which wasn't there before appears, the first reaction shpould presumably be "Thanks! This is a great start" rather than "this is rubbish".

The sooner we realise that the best way to have community co-production of Maemo is to have Nokia employees and contractors be considered as members of the community (both by themselves and community members), the better.

The HIG doesn't need to be proof-read. It would be better with some changes in language. The Maemo community has for years begged for Nokia to give more ways for people to help themselves more easily. Publishing documents like the HIG under a free documentation licence, and encouraging co-creation of the document, is one more way for people to help themselves.

No-one is requiring the community to proof-read the HIG. I thought it might be something which would fulfill a number of goals:

1. Be a fun way to help out if you only have a few minutes to give, and quickly see your suggestion make the project better
2. Have a concrete example to show to Nokia management of the community making Maemo better
3. Generate a better document for developers of Maemo applications

If you want to wait until there are documentation resources for revising the document, then wait. If you want to make a better document for everyone involved, then help out. This is not Nokia looking for free labour, it's us taking what we're given and improving it if we're unhappy with it.

Cheers,
Dave.

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

I don't think most of us are putting down the hard work the paid contractors did to produce the initial draft of the Maemo HIG.

But, I'm sorry, but it really does need to be proof read and corrected by native speakers. The grammar and syntax are very strange.

I think we are mostly shocked that this proofreading wasn't done before the document was released by Nokia.

It would be a completely different story if this document was produced by volunteers as a community-driven effort, instead of an official Nokia developers' document.

I'm glad this thread keeps getting bumped, it reminds me to go and do a bit more work on it.

Re: Crowd-sourcing proof-reading the HIG
 

Honestly, between "release early, release often" and "don't release until it's perfect" (which it never is), I am happy to encourage Nokia in the first direction. I would hope that any efforts in that sense are welcomed by the community, rather than criticised, since criticism will only convince people that they should not be releasing betas and alphas of things that aren't ready yet.

Cheers,
Dave.