odoo/documentation#2852
Created by fw-bot
Statuses:
- ci/documentation: (runtime 62s)
- ci/codeowner_coverage: (runtime 13s)
- label
- odoo-dev:saas-15.2-15.0-inventory-thd-batch-updates-zst-oQVY-fw
- head
- ec9fbc833205ab1da833064c8cb3e40037bdc3e2
- merged
- 3 years ago by Sales, Antoine Vandevenne (anv)
| odoo/documentation | |
|---|---|
| 15.0 | #2556 |
| saas-15.2 | #2852 |
| saas-15.3 | #2853 |
| 16.0 | #2854 |
| 17.0 | |
| 18.0 | |
| saas-18.2 | |
| saas-18.3 | |
| saas-18.4 | |
| 19.0 | |
| master | #2855 |
[FW][IMP] inventory: thd batch updates
Overview
This is a batch cherry pick of PR’s #2002, #1984, #1900, #1876, #1870, #1854, and #1824
I took the changes originally proposed in these PR’s and stacked them here on a fresh 15.0 base since they were all merge requests into 15.0.
Formatting updates
On top of the original changes proposed by @thomasdeleval, I went ahead and updated technicals for each affected RST file + associated images. Those changes are as follows in order to bring each doc up to standards:
- fixed 100th character line breaks
- added alt text to images with proper grammar
- fixed indentations on RST tags
- renamed images attached to respective RST files (when appropriate) to match new convention (
usage_01.png—>uom-handling-vs-purchase.png), and updated RST links accordingly. - fixed some broken links + misnamed folders
Follow up items for review
I did not change any of the content other than what what the PRs originally suggested, however I think there are a number of improvements to be made around wording, grammar, and specificity of language.
Generally speaking, please consider the following suggestions in content review stage:
- add missing
:guilabel:'s 😈 - wording/grammar: I caught a number of instances where the technical details were too wordy, vague, or the instruction got lost / wasn’t clear. Some words are strange like “hit” instead of “click” or “choose”.
- headings: especially the h1 so they follow convention re:guidelines:headings
- Consider rephrasing all hypothetical narratives (e.g. “imagine if…”). Would stick to third-person instructional w/ time order language, if possible. “What if” scenarios are more helpful when visually illustrated with video or long-form blog articles, however for software documentation, this will interrupt ability to skim and absorb instructions which are supposed to be clear and easy to find.
- Similarly, would also reword/remove all first-person and second-person familiar statements and stick with third-person instructional.
- images: check all for HD resolution, at or around 768 pixel breakpoint in width, and are compressed. Are there any images that need to be reshot?
- images: are they actually showcasing the feature being written about? Some aren’t clear.
- remove unnecessary images, or surround them with new blocks of descriptive copy so the writing is leading the document instead of the visuals re: guidlines:images
Forward-Port-Of: #2556