Skip to content

Latest commit

 

History

History
60 lines (38 loc) · 3.92 KB

index.md

File metadata and controls

60 lines (38 loc) · 3.92 KB

Kiara

A possible information architecture for a new docs site for kiara could look like this.

This structure is loosely modelled on the diataxis framework for writing and structuring quality documentation. This also has really great ideas on how to structure the individual pages that fit in each section

General considerations

Search

Good search will be really important, especially if these docs get big and/or the information architecture gets messy. Great if the tech solution we choose already has search built in (mkdocs-material does for example), else pagefind is a nice option.

Docs from plugins

There's a bunch of different types of plugins, core vs not, made by us or external people, just workflows or complicated things. At the very least, I think these docs need to list what these plugins are, if they are public.

If there's tutorials or how-tos specific to a plugin, it might be nice to also include them here, encourage plugin authors to PR the docs repo as a way to publicise their plugin and what it does.

Plugins always need a way to have API docs. The existing mkdocs solution from the template could use some work. It's as yet unclear whether the eventual 'main' docs site should directly include docs for some/all/no plugins, or they should be standalone.

Testing

How do we make sure these docs, specifically the how-to's and tutorials, are correct and also remain up-to-date if/when kiara changes? Wrong docs is almost worse than no docs, so getting testing in place is really important. Are there existing tests for any docs or notebooks?

miscellaneous questions

  • Do we want to show API docs for packages at specfic versions, or only latest?
  • do we want to support (now/in future) multilingual docs
  • Should we have a writing style guide? Do we make our own, or take a pre-exiting one? Can we enforce it. Same for formatting of markdown files etc.
  • is it worth visually distinguishing docs aimed at researchers vs developers? use-case: I'm a historian and I found a page via search, but I don't understand anything on it, is that because i'm stupid, or because those docs aren't relevant to me