Count me firmly among those who disagree.
I think you've discounted far too much the automatic creation of
contents pages at OSU. None of the other archives provides an interface
that even remotely resembles this.
Oh, the search capabilities provided by Utrecht and Oxford are useful.
Although I can't get either to work tonight: lynx doesn't seem to like
the form sent by Utrecht and I can't submit the search; Oxford reports
no hits on 'diabetes' where a couple of weeks ago they gave me several
dozen hits.
Saying that these sites "convert the posted FAQs to hypertext
documents", as your page says, is a gross exaggeration. Offering a
document by the http protocol and activating a few URLs in the document
does not make it hypertext. Only Tom Fine's archive at OSU (soon to
move) makes an effort to impose some added structure, and it can hardly
be called a hypertext conversion.
Utrecht and Oxford provide a powerful finder capability with their full
text indices, along with the ability to read the entire document
(unsectioned) online or download it. Tom Fine provides less searching
but a more structured reader. Both are valuable.
What's the best way to read an FAQ? There is no best way. People differ,
and believe it or not, different people have different optimum modes of
learning. Your Milage Will Vary. Guaranteed. Part of the job of the FAQ
author and/or maintainer is to try to provide the entry and structure
for as many truly different people as feasible.
The proper way to present the different archives is to briefly describe
the capabilities and presentation, and let each individual decide. Your
page currently does a good job of describing the capabilities, but
falls down on describing the presentations. My recommendation is to
improve the latter and quit trying to judge one archive over another.
Edward Reid
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved