New "function tables" in V13 documentation

On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:

In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on
Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step
backwards:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again
that plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the
old format.

Thomas

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On Mon, 9 Nov 2020 at 02:54, Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:

On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:

On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:

In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on
Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step
backwards:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
format.

The person who made that comment retracted later.

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

On 11/9/20 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:

On 11/8/20 1:57 PM, Thomas Kellerer wrote:

In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on
Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step
backwards:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
format.

The person who made that comment retracted later.

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to
discussion?

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

On 2020-Nov-09, Adrian Klaver wrote:

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to
discussion?

Because the old format had problems.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:33 PM Adrian Klaver <adrian.klaver@aklaver.com>
wrote:

On 11/9/20 12:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to
discussion?

More usefully, the current format and content changes are not going to be
"reverted" so "going back" is not really an option. If you want to propose
a patch for moving forward to a new format that is similar to the old one
while retaining the content changes that would be a possible way forward.

David J.

po 9. 11. 2020 v 21:35 odesílatel Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> napsal:

On 2020-Nov-09, Adrian Klaver wrote:

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to
discussion?

Because the old format had problems.

The new format has problems as well. I was thinking about reviving old
format conditionally (based on css media queries) to wide screens, and
use current format on mobile-like screen widths.

But it is not clear for me what exactly was the problem with the old
format. Is there any discussion anyone can point me to to ensure I'll
not just revive the old problems, but improve the overall situation?

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
format.

The person who made that comment retracted later.

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.

regards, tom lane

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again

that

plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in

the old

format.

The person who made that comment retracted later.

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.

My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly skim
the table to find out what is present since there is considerable extra
information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be skimmed over.

My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial
sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring
argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a
person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then
reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.

David J.

On 11/9/20 12:35 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:

On 2020-Nov-09, Adrian Klaver wrote:

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

Improve it by going back to old format. Not sure why that is not open to
discussion?

Because the old format had problems.

That reply is about as useful as the 'improvements'.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian.klaver@aklaver.com

=?UTF-8?B?Sm9zZWYgxaBpbcOhbmVr?= <josef.simanek@gmail.com> writes:

But it is not clear for me what exactly was the problem with the old
format. Is there any discussion anyone can point me to to ensure I'll
not just revive the old problems, but improve the overall situation?

The primary discussion threads for this change were

/messages/by-id/9326.1581457869@sss.pgh.pa.us

/messages/by-id/8691.1586798003@sss.pgh.pa.us

There are a lot of older threads about content (not layout) deficiencies
in our docs that were practically impossible to fix under the old format;
here's one:

/messages/by-id/158110996889.1089.4224139874633222837@wrigleys.postgresql.org

regards, tom lane

On 11/9/20 2:47 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us
<mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>> wrote:

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org
<mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>> writes:

On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then

again that

plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster

in the old

format.

The person who made that comment retracted later.

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that.  It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions.  I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two.  We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.

My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly
skim the table to find out what is present since there is considerable
extra information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be
skimmed over.

My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial
sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring
argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose.  Once a
person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then
reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.

This is what TOCs are for, no?

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:

My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial
sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring
argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a
person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then
reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.

This is what TOCs are for, no?

Are you criticizing my over-explanation of the phrase "table of contents"
here?

David J.

On 11/9/20 3:05 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com
<mailto:ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com>> wrote:

My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of
non-trivial sections that simply lists available functions by name
(generally ignoring argument variations) and a quick one line
description of purpose.  Once a person finds the name of the function
that suits their needs they can then reference the main table for
details, warnings, and examples.

This is what TOCs are for, no?

Are you criticizing my over-explanation of the phrase "table of contents"
here?

Why do you think that?

I'm *agreeing* this is why TOCs were invented.

--
Angular momentum makes the world go 'round.

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 3:30 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:

On 11/9/20 3:05 PM, David G. Johnston wrote:

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 2:01 PM Ron <ronljohnsonjr@gmail.com> wrote:

My suggestion is to add a "table of contents" at the top of non-trivial
sections that simply lists available functions by name (generally ignoring
argument variations) and a quick one line description of purpose. Once a
person finds the name of the function that suits their needs they can then
reference the main table for details, warnings, and examples.

This is what TOCs are for, no?

Are you criticizing my over-explanation of the phrase "table of contents"
here?

Why do you think that?

I'm *agreeing* this is why TOCs were invented.

Because agreement without elaboration usually just merits a +1 so I read
more into the statement than you intended.

David J.

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:57 PM Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net> wrote:

In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step backwards:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/

It's more than a little ironic that reddit's "old" format (still
visible via old.reddit.com) is objectively clearer and better along
exactly the same lines.

merlin

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 07:46:21PM -0600, Merlin Moncure wrote:

On Sun, Nov 8, 2020 at 3:57 PM Thomas Kellerer <shammat@gmx.net> wrote:

In case someone is interested: there is a little discussion going on on Reddit whether the new format of presenting functions in V13 is a step backwards:

https://www.reddit.com/r/PostgreSQL/comments/jpi0rp/does_anyone_else_feel_like_the_v13_docs_are_a/

It's more than a little ironic that reddit's "old" format (still
visible via old.reddit.com) is objectively clearer and better along
exactly the same lines.

I think it is funny that the Redit thread thinks we made the format
change because of mobile, but it was actually more for PDF output, which
is more old-school than even web pages.

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> https://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB https://enterprisedb.com

The usefulness of a cup is in its emptiness, Bruce Lee

From: David G. Johnston <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>

On Mon, Nov 9, 2020 at 1:41 PM Tom Lane <mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Alvaro Herrera <mailto:alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:

On 2020-Nov-08, Adrian Klaver wrote:

Yeah, I would agree with the mobile first design comments. Then again that
plague is hitting most sites these days. My 2 cents is it is a step
backwards. You can cover more ground quickly and digest it faster in the old
format.

If you have suggestion on how to improve the new format, I'm sure we can
discuss that. It seems pretty clear to me that we're not going back to
the old format.

I think there's no question that the new format is better in any case
where a function needs more than a couple words of documentation.
I could see the argument for adopting a more compact format for tables
that contain no such functions. I think you might find that the set of
such tables is nigh empty, though; even section 9.3 (mathematical
functions) has a lot of functions that need a sentence or two. We used
to either omit important details for such functions or stick them in
footnotes, and neither of those options is very nice.

My observation is that the new format reduces one's ability to quickly skim the table to find out what is present since there is considerable extra information in one's eyes during that process that needs to be skimmed over.

I'm slow to the party, but I'm going to go with the new format is horrible. I agree with David that you can't quickly scan down the new table to find things like the return type (for example) which is something I do frequently. Go to the string funcs/ops page in v13, and try to quickly find the ones that return an "int" (because your goal is to find the position of something in a string so you know the return value will have to be an "int"). The new version makes that hard while the old version is easy. In fact, I couldn't even find the return type at first when I looked because there is no label (the power of tables with headers was removed).

The description and example also run together under the new format, which sort of comes across as a "wall of text". If I really zoom in, I can see they're different fonts, but at my normal zoom level they look pretty much the same at first glance.

This makes me want to stay on v12.x for as long as possible -- really.

If the maintainers are dead-set on maintaining the new format despite it drawbacks (and after reading all the other comments about the positives I'm going to say I don't see any positives**), then it'd be extremely helpful to do some CSS magic to make them easier to read. Personally, I'd like to see there be a setting for if media is HTML that it show the old table format, but if not, here's some ideas to make the new format more palatable:

* The return type needs to stand out a LOT more, bold would be a great start, adding color would help too.

* Make the description and example look much more different, again color or perhaps color banding (background a light gray or something on the example).

* Make the example code and example results more different, the simple "->" between them gets lost easily to my eye so it's harder to read as is.

* Can you add a few more classes to identify the parts betters in the tables? For example, I see the CSS class "returnvalue" on the example result, but there is nothing on the example code itself identifying it as such. If you did this better labeling then perhaps those of us who are complaining could attempt to overcome some of our objections by restyling the tables with colors & fonts & such. Not a full solution as that would require manipulating the DOM, but even small changes with color could bring large relief.

[** I think it was Bruce who pointed out the old table format was troublesome in the PDF format. I concede that and anything else for when you're constrained to paper. But I suspect most users look at these docs on a computer monitor with HTML so those size constraints aren't an issue there. Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those users on larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right margins are so wide half of your screen is wasted instead of letting the text flow and resize).]

Kevin
This e-mail transmission, and any documents, files or previous e-mail messages attached to it, may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, or a person responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, distribution, review, copy or use of any of the information contained in or attached to this message is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately notify us by reply e-mail, and destroy the original transmission and its attachments without reading them or saving them to disk. Thank you.

On Fri, Nov 13, 2020 at 12:20 PM Kevin Brannen <KBrannen@efji.com> wrote:

Go to the string funcs/ops page in v13, and try to quickly find the ones
that return an "int" (because your goal is to find the position of
something in a string so you know the return value will have to be an
"int").

That is not something I considered...I figured people would look for a name
that seems to reflect "position" or "in_string". I've never felt the need
to search based upon return type.

Designing pages to the smallest media just frustrates those users on
larger media (cue the many examples on the web where the left/right margins
are so wide half of your screen is wasted instead of letting the text flow
and resize).]

It is just as bad it is so wide that one has to move their head instead of
just moving their eyes. If anything our tables could probably be improved
by enforcing a maximum width to the content area.

David J.