Chris Babcock <cbabcock@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> writes:
>> >> The only thing I thought you could add possibly was a bit of
>> >> "hierarchy" to some of the responses, e.g. if you're not getting
>> >> mail, your first step is how to *****s if the Judge is working,
>> >> then if you find the Judge is working, then you look at your sent
>> >> mail and match the address, then you go to the openings list to
>> >> see if that is being updated, or something like that. But that
>> >> would be tweaking and might be hard to implement.
>>
>> >I could have done it as a "how-to" instead of a FAQ, since the
>> >material is currently very linear in its presentation...
>>
>> >(There are two other complete sets of issues with email to the judge
>> >in multipart/alternative MIME and non-standard character sets.)
>>
>> I understand, this is just a suggestion if you were to keep building
>> it.
>Actually, that's backwards... If I was not going to build it then I
>would have done it as a How-to (made the fact that it is step by step
>more explicit). Since I am likely to address some other issues as
>well, I chose the FAQ format.
>What I'm likely to do, and I'm thanking you for the inspiration, is
>maintain it in sections. The part that's currently written will be
>"What to do if you stop receiving mail from the judge." The other two
>part would be "I don't understand these error messages." The 2 problems
>with malformatted mail to the judge aren't that different from a user's
>perspective, just from the perspective of the server.
>Chris
Hi Chris, sorry for being so dense in communication, that's what I meant
you should do in "building it", I was only suggesting that you be a bit
more obvious about sequential pieces of advice between each section. I
think it ALWAYS is the case that if you write the FAQ from the perspective
that the USER has you are better off. They don't know what they don't
know (you know this, I'm just explicitly pointing it out).
Jim-Bob
|
