Replies: 6 comments
-
This may have its proper place on the work-in-progress website. If you agree, the best place to report this would be this issue, where we discuss what content to add to the website. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Well, there too, perhaps - but this would also fit in the FAQ here. (Or maybe you're going to link the FAQ here to the website instead?) Anyway, if you add it to that website, that would certainly be nice. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
Yes, I think we'd rather link the FAQ here to the website. An average user would probably not look for the FAQ at the github repo, but rather look at the website FAQ section (if we create one). |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@eyalroz I have created a first draft for the comparison of Xournal++ with Xournal for the website, see this pull request. While it is still incomplete, it will give you some information that you may have known yet. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
@rolandlo : Oh, that's great! It's basically what I wanted to know. |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
which is by the way exactly to this page right now https://xournalpp.github.io/community/other-software/#xournal |
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
-
I've been an avid user of Xournal (not Xournal++, which I've just noticed) for several years now, as it is available as a package on Debian-based systems.
Although I haven't mastered it - I am used to it, with its UI quirks. It also works stably for me.
Now I see this new shiny rewrite, and I'm wondering: "Should I try it? What will I get out of it?"
I believe that at the very least the FAQ should include a listing of:
Other than that - thank you all for your efforts.
PS - This issue should have a "documentation" tag, but "enhancement" was the closest thing I could choose.
Beta Was this translation helpful? Give feedback.
All reactions