• 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
User Documentation

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: We are entitled to everything we say in this forum however, there was literally none, nothing whatsoever and never any intention of giving pretentious suggestions, not even in any insignificant manner like you've mentioned. So yes, your answer was very unprofessional. You can't tell any user in this forum, may he be a junior or senior member, as pretentious, or giving out pretentious comments like Internet trolls as you've slightly implied, especially when we're here to contribute for the betterment of the CI framework.

Being pretentious is very rarely intentional and I was very careful in choosing that particular word in relation to your "not good to look at" comment. It in no way implies trolling.

You've now literally confirmed that we're all entitled to say anything, but me saying something you don't like is unprofessional - this is not only pretentious, but also hypocritical.

Implying that anything I've said to you may've depended on your seniority level is a completely fabricated accusation.

And don't even try to sell me the argument that can't tell you anything because you're looking to contribute. I don't care what your goals may or may not be - that doesn't give you immunity to anything.

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: I did mention it's not good to look at and I meant what I said. I did not spend time on those included screenshots for something insignificant.

You know we've already seen what's in those screenshots, right? It's not something only visible on your PC.

This reminds me of one case where a manager sent a bunch of screenshots to the development team and basically said "This is the project - do it" (not speaking of a simple website, mind you) - no specs, no any kind of other documentation, not even a glimpse of an idea how the application was supposed to work.
You're doing this same thing over and over, and over again - these screenshots say nothing.

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: I'm always in the fast lane of deadlines and the current documentation format, does indeed look messy, especially when doing quick glances.

Still zero arguments.

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: I was a designer before I became a programmer and I can tell you in an expert, artistic manner, the formatting is messy.

You're now being downright arrogant and trying to instill an "appeal to authority" by implying that we should all just take your word for anything on the subject because you're an expert. I don't care if you're a Nobel Prize winner in your field. Facts and logic trump your ego.

On a related note - in my experience, "artistic" designers often produce pretty but very UX-inconvenient designs, so ...

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: The reason may be relative to me personally however, if it seem fine to you, it is then, also a relatively pretentious claim on your end.

Seriously, do you even know what "pretentious" means?

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: Most modern, strict data-typed frameworks contain the same format I proposed. So how does that make it not a meaningful argument?

This is how: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum

You see, when I said your argument is a well-known fallacy, I wasn't just talking out of my ass. That's usually how I act and I'd appreciate it if you consider that before directly contradicting me with zero arguments again.

(08-10-2016, 07:01 AM)prezire Wrote: And for the record, you misunderstood this thread's entire point with your last answer. Clearly this topic is about CI4 documentation. What I proposed was purposefully for CI4 and NOT CI3! That is the reason why this proposal was made --CI3 has no datatypes while CI4 does. If CI4 has data types, then why not provide additional information by including data-types in every method signature lines?

I may very well have misunderstood this, because:

- This screenshot - http://icecream.me/44998e053b59b2bbf505c86ded89afee - (that you started the topic with) displays your suggestion as already being present in CI4 docs.
- This screenshot - http://icecream.me/8633fd13e24b9d203af3dfceb057c4ee (that you call "not good to look at") matches the CI3 docs.
- This screenshot - http://icecream.me/083b9d8273b54a14038f07796adf3ad7 (showing that Lonnie agrees with you, and should've been a link to the GitHub comment) very obviously shows that you've had this conversation elsewhere, it's been pretty much decided on and therefore you should have no reason whatsoever to start a discussion about that here.

^ See, these are what I call arguments.
You can see the logic.
They are not bare claims.

And you're calling me unprofessional?

Messages In This Thread
User Documentation - by prezire - 08-07-2016, 10:34 PM
RE: User Documentation - by skunkbad - 08-07-2016, 10:58 PM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-08-2016, 03:58 AM
RE: User Documentation - by Narf - 08-08-2016, 04:09 AM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-08-2016, 05:30 AM
RE: User Documentation - by Narf - 08-09-2016, 04:07 AM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-09-2016, 04:09 PM
RE: User Documentation - by Narf - 08-10-2016, 02:14 AM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-10-2016, 07:01 AM
RE: User Documentation - by Narf - 08-10-2016, 08:00 AM
RE: User Documentation - by ciadmin - 08-09-2016, 08:23 PM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-10-2016, 07:10 AM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-10-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: User Documentation - by Michus - 08-10-2016, 05:07 PM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-10-2016, 09:52 PM
RE: User Documentation - by ridho - 08-12-2016, 02:42 AM
RE: User Documentation - by kilishan - 08-12-2016, 11:43 AM
RE: User Documentation - by prezire - 08-13-2016, 05:09 AM

Digg   Delicious   Reddit   Facebook   Twitter   StumbleUpon  

  Theme © 2014 iAndrew  
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2020 MyBB Group.