[documentation] 'Last updated' information on handbook pages?

[Steven Jones]

> It's a theme issue.  As it stands now to enable it would also put
> author names and other information in that space.  I will make a note
> for the eventual d.o. redesign but there are a lot of proposed changes
> right now and I generally don't like to do to many at once.  Doing to
> many changes at once makes it difficult to evaluate effectiveness.

Seriously, I could add the date in about a minute.
Not a valid reason.

Not sure where the date would go in the theme though. Should it go in
the header or at the bottom of the content?


On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Steven Peck <sepeck at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> It's a theme issue.  As it stands now to enable it would also put
> author names and other information in that space.  I will make a note
> for the eventual d.o. redesign but there are a lot of proposed changes
> right now and I generally don't like to do to many at once.  Doing to
> many changes at once makes it difficult to evaluate effectiveness.
>
> Steven Peck
> http://www.blkmtn.org
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 6:28 AM, Shai Gluskin <shai at content2zero.com> wrote:
> > I agree with Nat and Meitar,
> >
> > That time stamp is a data point. From reading the NYTimes to Wikipedia to
> > Drupal.org a reader is obligated to assess the value/limitations of any
> > particular piece of information. I think it is paternalistic to keep
> > information out of folks hands because of a possibility that some folks
> > might misinterpret the meaning of it.
> >
> > Reasons not to show information:
> > * causes usability problems by mucking up presentation or page clarity.
> > * takes up valuable system resources like running an "expensive" query.
> >
> > As long as it passes these tests, I'd be in favor.
> >
> > Shai
> >
> > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 5:08 AM, Nathaniel Catchpole <catch56 at googlemail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> I agree with Meitar. I don't think having recently updated timestamps on
> >> out of date information is going to lull people into a false sense of
> >> security - at least not compared to now, where they appear pretty much
> >> timeless except for the version taxonomy.
> >>
> >> This came up specifically in the case of module comparisons - if I see
> >> that a page comparing modules hasn't been updated for 6 months, then
> >> hopefully it'll indicate that things might have changed since then and
> >> encourage me to update it. At the moment, I have no idea either way unless I
> >> check the revisions tab (and I rarely do this unless I'm about to archive a
> >> page or make a big edit, hardly ever if I'm actually reading documentation).
> >>
> >> Also, if I see a page that hasn't been updated since 2006 or something,
> >> then it's an extra bit of encouragement to jump in and fix it.
> >>
> >> Nat
> >>
> >> --
> >> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> >> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >
> >
> > --
> > Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> > List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/
> >
> --
> Pending work: http://drupal.org/project/issues/documentation/
> List archives: http://lists.drupal.org/pipermail/documentation/



--
Regards
Steven Jones