| [07:05] <dholbach> good morning | |
| [09:20] <czajkowski> aloha | |
| [14:40] <dholbach> kyleN, mhall119: I'm just going through all content on developer.u.c for a general review - and I wasn't quite sure: what is http://developer.ubuntu.com/apps/platform/apis/ for? | |
| [14:41] <dholbach> is this supposed to go to developer.u.c/api at some stage? | |
| [14:42] <mhall119> dholbach: those look like balloons' docs....not sure why they're under the main platform section | |
| [14:43] <mhall119> maybe the page can just be renamed from API to Quality or Testing | |
| [14:43] <dholbach> mhall119, reparented as well? | |
| [14:43] <dholbach> balloons, ^ | |
| [14:43] <kyleN> i think he said some of his testing apis are platform appropriate (like autopilot generally) and some are toolkit specific and they would be placed in the apt sections there | |
| [14:43] <dholbach> hum hum... | |
| [14:44] <mhall119> dholbach: I think a reparenting isn't needed if we rename te page | |
| [14:44] <dholbach> I think from a "which bucket does this fit in" perspective it makes sense | |
| [14:44] <dholbach> but for a new user going through the items in the navigation it's a bit confusing | |
| [14:45] <dholbach> or it might be | |
| [14:46] <kyleN> also, so far we have strictly required api docs to fit into the current api scheme. these do not though | |
| [14:47] <kyleN> mhall119, ^ | |
| [14:48] <dholbach> kyleN, it might be more a question for Nick | |
| [14:48] <kyleN> dholbach, doesn't mhall119 manage all the api docs? | |
| [14:49] <mhall119> the autopilot API docs are not strictly API reference, it's reference + tutorials + FAQ + more | |
| [14:49] <mhall119> kyleN: I don't | |
| [14:49] <dholbach> kyleN, from the discussion above (I haven't checked) it looks like Nick wrote the article and might know more | |
| [14:49] <kyleN> hmm. | |
| [14:50] <balloons> yes, we had the 'quality' section, but it was agred to drop it and place the docs in existing sections | |
| [14:51] <kyleN> balloons and I had agreed quality should be a side nav but that idea was modified in a meeting as I recall | |
| [14:52] <dholbach> balloons, kyleN: the reason I brought it up was that it might look to somebody who's new like "this is platform api docs" | |
| [14:53] <dholbach> while it's actually (if I understand correctly) links to apis which are platform agnostic or didn't fit elsewhere | |
| [14:53] <dholbach> I don't know if we should fix this or what a good way to clarify this might be | |
| [14:53] <dholbach> I just wanted to bring it up | |
| [14:53] <kyleN> i still think a quality section/side nav would solve this | |
| [14:54] <kyleN> I wonder if we are overconcerned about the proliferation of side nav items. I tend to think a set of sid nave topics would be very useful. | |
| [14:54] <dholbach> maybe we should have a "you might be looking for the <link to the api website>" to the top of the page somewhere as well | |
| [14:54] <kyleN> and some other dev sites do it that way: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/navigation/#section=Topics&topic=Mathematical%20Computation | |
| [14:59] <balloons> I have no horse in the race, except the content. I'm ok with placing it inside the existing sections, and agree quality as a sidenav could be weird. But yes, the AP docs and linkouts to other tool docs need to live somewhere.. a bit like linking to third party apis | |
| [15:01] <dholbach> balloons, sure sure - I didn't mean to say that they should be kicked out or something :) | |
| [15:01] <balloons> dholbach, I know.. you are just confused and want things to be logically laid out. I agree :-) | |
| [15:01] <dholbach> balloons, I was first just wondering what they were and then how we can make it a bit clearer to somebody who has little idea where they're headed | |
| [15:07] <balloons> I'm wide open.. let's try some of your ideas | |
| [15:09] <czajkowski> aloha | |
| [16:21] <dholbach> all right my friends - see you all tomorrow - have a great rest of your day! | |
| [18:49] <jcastro> czajkowski, wow really | |
| [18:49] <jcastro> an aircraft carrier? | |
| [20:32] <czajkowski> jcastro: eh ? | |