IBM z/OS Documentation

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

<snip>

If it was truly inline with the other text, that would be confusing or even annoying to me. 

</snip>

Maybe you're not thinking of "inline with the other text" in the way I am. I referred specifically to having the data properly integrated as if it were done right the first time. I don't even know what these service documents are. Are these info APARs? I think of info APARs (et al) as the way to get the information into the eyes of the customers since we failed to provide that info properly in the books. Going forward, I'd think we'd want the info to be properly in the books.

In what way would integrating this information be confusing or annoying?

Can you provide an example?

If it is a good idea to have a Q&A section within the normal doc, that's fine with me.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

<snip>

If it was truly inline with the other text, that would be confusing or even annoying to me. 

</snip>

Maybe you're not thinking of "inline with the other text" in the way I am. I referred specifically to having the data properly integrated as if it were done right the first time. I don't even know what these service documents are. Are these info APARs? I think of info APARs (et al) as the way to get the information into the eyes of the customers since we failed to provide that info properly in the books. Going forward, I'd think we'd want the info to be properly in the books.

In what way would integrating this information be confusing or annoying?

Can you provide an example?

If it is a good idea to have a Q&A section within the normal doc, that's fine with me.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Welcome, Mark.

You really didn't miss anything.

I like the way you phrase the choices.

If there is separate doc, then it would be good to have a link to it. I realized, from your previous append, that you can right click on a link and direct whether to open link in a new tab or open link in a new window. That says that the functionality exists and we can work on what the right default is (which appears currently to be to open any link in the same tab, which might mean that they would not want to change that).

Simply dropping text into the original, when that text was written in a different style and possibly intended for a different audience, is unlikely to be the right answer. Integrating that text to meet what it would have been if the information was planned from the beginning seems like the way to land with a cohesive result.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

<snip>

If it was truly inline with the other text, that would be confusing or even annoying to me. 

</snip>

Maybe you're not thinking of "inline with the other text" in the way I am. I referred specifically to having the data properly integrated as if it were done right the first time. I don't even know what these service documents are. Are these info APARs? I think of info APARs (et al) as the way to get the information into the eyes of the customers since we failed to provide that info properly in the books. Going forward, I'd think we'd want the info to be properly in the books.

In what way would integrating this information be confusing or annoying?

Can you provide an example?

If it is a good idea to have a Q&A section within the normal doc, that's fine with me.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Welcome, Mark.

You really didn't miss anything.

I like the way you phrase the choices.

If there is separate doc, then it would be good to have a link to it. I realized, from your previous append, that you can right click on a link and direct whether to open link in a new tab or open link in a new window. That says that the functionality exists and we can work on what the right default is (which appears currently to be to open any link in the same tab, which might mean that they would not want to change that).

Simply dropping text into the original, when that text was written in a different style and possibly intended for a different audience, is unlikely to be the right answer. Integrating that text to meet what it would have been if the information was planned from the beginning seems like the way to land with a cohesive result.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

<snip>

If it was truly inline with the other text, that would be confusing or even annoying to me. 

</snip>

Maybe you're not thinking of "inline with the other text" in the way I am. I referred specifically to having the data properly integrated as if it were done right the first time. I don't even know what these service documents are. Are these info APARs? I think of info APARs (et al) as the way to get the information into the eyes of the customers since we failed to provide that info properly in the books. Going forward, I'd think we'd want the info to be properly in the books.

In what way would integrating this information be confusing or annoying?

Can you provide an example?

If it is a good idea to have a Q&A section within the normal doc, that's fine with me.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

There would have to be a clear rule for "By default, this link opens as a new tab" vs "By default, this link opens in the same tab".

And that should apply across the whole product (ideally would apply across all the products).

What comes to mind is: why should the default be different for "NFS Diagnostic Data Collection Guidelines" than for "Using z/OS component traces", for both of which there are links on this page? Would it only be things marked "Learn more" that get the "must be new tab" treatment?

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Welcome, Mark.

You really didn't miss anything.

I like the way you phrase the choices.

If there is separate doc, then it would be good to have a link to it. I realized, from your previous append, that you can right click on a link and direct whether to open link in a new tab or open link in a new window. That says that the functionality exists and we can work on what the right default is (which appears currently to be to open any link in the same tab, which might mean that they would not want to change that).

Simply dropping text into the original, when that text was written in a different style and possibly intended for a different audience, is unlikely to be the right answer. Integrating that text to meet what it would have been if the information was planned from the beginning seems like the way to land with a cohesive result.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

<snip>

If it was truly inline with the other text, that would be confusing or even annoying to me. 

</snip>

Maybe you're not thinking of "inline with the other text" in the way I am. I referred specifically to having the data properly integrated as if it were done right the first time. I don't even know what these service documents are. Are these info APARs? I think of info APARs (et al) as the way to get the information into the eyes of the customers since we failed to provide that info properly in the books. Going forward, I'd think we'd want the info to be properly in the books.

In what way would integrating this information be confusing or annoying?

Can you provide an example?

If it is a good idea to have a Q&A section within the normal doc, that's fine with me.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

The wording of the original note had this for scenario 4:

"Scenario 4:  The IBM Support information gets integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article."

That does not mesh with what you were trying. In fact, in a subsequent note, Geoff re-phrased to me something quite different: ... clicking the link opens a new IBM Documentation where the supplemental content has been added to the document.

If we consider yours as scenario 4, then the original scenario becomes scenario 5.

I don't even know what the re-phrased scenario means. What does it mean to "open a new IBM Documentation" and in what was is the "supplemental content...added to the document"?

I'd appreciate the team's thoughts on my case of "The IBM Support information gets properly integrated inline with the IBM Documentation article, as if we had gotten it right the first time". There's no scenario to execute for this case; it is just a thought exercise.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design

Mark,

You wrote

<snip>

</snip>

I'm not sure that choice 4 is what you're thinking it is. I think choice 4 is integrating the service data with the original data.

As I understand it: If the data is properly integrated there will be nothing extra/new to click on. It's what would have been there if we had gotten it right the first time.  The IBM Docs "strategy" appears to be to have all the related data in one section rather than having links to subsections. I'm not saying that I'm a fan of that strategy but it does appear to be the strategy.

Peter Relson

z/OS Core Technology Design