Re: QFOM feedback

[Brett Dikeman <brett@arthur.malebolge.com>]

At 11:04 AM -0500 on 1/13/98, Dan Simoes wrote:

> If you;ve used the QFOM, I'm interested in your feedback
> as to how it compares to online web documents (not the archives
as am I!  I have recieved only a few responses.

> per se).  I'm trying to do a big organization push and I
> want to decide on the format, and also not waste time.

Knowing the FOM better than just about anyone on the list(intimately so to
speak, after having set it up) I would fathom the following comments that
the QFOM would:

-allow for more growth
-does not require one person(or even a group) to add new material(everyone
can add stuff, even categories now.)  Only effort is maintenance
administration, which I can handle and is not always essential for the
addition of new material.
-Allows for searching more easily(built in search engine, and it can only
search in a category, similar to Yahoo's searching.)
-Data, with some fancy perl scripting, could be used to produce a text file
or paper printout for "desktop reference"(TeX/laTex fans, eat your hearts
out!)


Now, honestly, I'll outright say the following against the QFOM:
-the QFOM launch wasn't, uh, smooth, to say the least
-people still don't really know how to add stuff, which I intend to correct
with a "how-to-add-something page complete with screen shots" that should
clear up that problem.  Some folks seem to be getting the hang of it, and
truthfully, I think we're doing ok considering when(and how) I launched the
QFOM.
-deciding where to add categories and how to lay out the QFOM is tricky.  I
think I sort of took off in the right direction after getting some feedback
from various people.

To make the QFOM a more attractive option, I offer my time to add many of
the archive tidbits to the QFOM(like the steak knife meathod.)  If one or
two other people helped out, it could probably be done in a couple weeks.

My advice:
let's give this at least another month before making any decisions either
way.  Give people some time to enter stuff, learn how to walk around it,
give me time to make some more categories, etc...

Second piece of advice:
A "FAQ" and the "FOM" have slightly different uses; keeping both, but
making sure they don't duplicate content(or at least not excessively) might
be food for thought.

Summary:
I think the QFOM offers more possibilities for the future.


I would like to hear any comments on the above; most importantly, I'd like
people to write me if they have:
-questions or problems with the QFOM
-just don't get it
-would like a category added and don't know how to do it(I would sorta
rather "execute" people's suggestions on categories for now, because it
could get messy really quickly.)

I will also be upgrading the QFOM software shortly(a full backup will be
made first.)  Jon Howell, the author, is on a roll and is adding features
left and right...on the other hand, I might wait a little and see if he
slows down a little so I don't end up continuously upgrading :)

Cheers,
Brett

------
Brett Dikeman
brett@pdikeman.ne.mediaone.net
~)-|
Hostes alienigeni me abduxerunt.  Qui annus est?
Te audire non possum.  Musa sapientum fixa est in aure.
Ita, scio hunc 'sig file' veterem fieri.
------