When you mouse over the editor buttons, you will see a tooltip that explains what each button does.

Good idea about the icons (I'm assuming you mean the icons that turn grey in thread view, once a thread has been read?). This I could add to our FAQ's.
Though I'm not too sure what you mean about "display formats"?

Documentation is good, I agree. But I've NEVER come across a website (forum) supplied with any other "user manuals" except FAQs, and I do think creation of those would be excessive. Oh come on, would you really like them to explain what "reply" and "quote" buttons mean and how to use them properly??

Given that we're in the context of 'The internet' and not 'The Tate Gallery' ;)

- FAQs do constitute proper documentation - though we're currently working to include as many new questions and answers as feasible.

- Most information on the screen is organised to be reasonably self-explanatory to a person mildly familiar with this environment. Those parts that are not, are 'tool-tipped'. If we were to include all information (on screen) that was necessary to logically (assuming no intuitive motion) describe each element - the page layout would be overwhelmed.

- This is the case with most websites, as they expect their users to accept a degree of inherent 'confusion'. We couldn't possibly expect our new users to leaf through the 2,500 pages of documentation needed to fully understand the various functions of this system.

There are many questions and many answers, if any indicators are missing from the screen that inhibit a intuitive understanding of the page logic - we will add them.

eg: The Goodman page:

http://www.englishforums.com/English/AgainDifficultyUsing/wzxqk/post.htm

-This page is a question and answer thread - as indicated at the top of the page.

-As you scroll down you can see that the first post must be the Question (assumed)

-Scrolling below that you can see the 'strongly' coloured 'Answers' - also marked with 'Best answer'

-Below that you can see a dividing line that refers to "All the other replies.." - we could rename that 'original thread' though some might not understand 'thread''

-Below that the post (one of the answers) indicates that it has been 'cut off' - with the text 'Click to see this verified answer' - this is because removing the answers from the original thread (as we did in the previous version) caused discontinuity in the resulting thread progression. Hence now you have the option to easily view it, but it's semi-hidden to illustrate that it's been moved to the answers location.

The resulting thread compacts the questions and 'relevant' answers into a format that a visiting user (never seen our site before - coming in with a 20 second attention limit) can easily digest. ie: They don't care what the various things on the rest of the page mean, they only want to see the answer to the question they are seeking. Beyond that, more experienced users can extrapolate detailed information if needed.

Hope this helps,

Frank.

Ruslana

“I meant no offence!”

No offense taken. It's just that I find it passing strange that a simple request for user documentation (not administrator documentation, not developer documentation) seems to have taken the administrators of the site completely by surprise. There are three, yes three, editors available, for example. It seems reasonable that there would be some description of the major features of each and the differences between them. Apparently not, at least not that a common user is allowed to see.

Another example. There are many graphic features used on the site with very few of them explained (probably at least two dozen icons some of which take on different colors for no apparent reason, the background color of the posts changes with no explanation, the poster's avatar suddenly appears on the left side of his post instead of the right, etc.). Doing all of that takes a non-trivial amount of developer effort but what's the point if the user doesn't know what it all means and can't find out? I suppose it's possible that the developers do that for their own benefit and information, if so they should just say so and be done with it. I guess it's also possible that all of this is old hat and is thoroughly documented elsewhere on the Internet, if so why not just post a link to the information and call it a day.

I guess I've learned my lesson. It's pretty obvious that there is not going to be any documentation made available beyond a FAQ or two. It's not beyond the realm of possibility that the only real documentation is the actual source code of the site. I've seen situations like that myself. But again I have to say that if that's the case the administrators should just say so and be done with it.

In any case this is my last post on the matter. If the administrators see fit to make documentation available at some point (or not) so be it.