Creating meaningful seperation / integration of users docs X engineering docs

[tgrecojs]

Overview

Currently, the documentation is laid out in such a way that there are 2 distinct sections: "engineering docs" and "user docs" the engineering docs.

Engineering docs holds documentation for people who are working closer to the internals of the system should refer to. Inside users docs you'll find a information that caters to a wide audience ranging from individuals who are non-technical, to individuals who are technical to the point that they also frequent the "engineering docs" sections.

Below as a screenshot of showing how these sections are separated.

You can view this for yourself by visiting akash.network/docs.

Goal

This issue is intended to be an area for discussing and ultimately coming to an agreed upon layout for how this should be structured so that non-technical users aren't forced to sift through content that is foreign to them and similiarly, technical users can easily navigate through the sections of the docs without having to navigate past "cloudmos deploy" sections (for example)

[hiroyukikumazawa]

Who is solving this issue or not?

[tgrecojs]

This issue is meant to be an open forum for discussing possible solutions to the questions. If you have any suggestions on how it should be laid out, then go right ahead. @hiroyukikumazawa

I actually do have some input on this matter, but I haven't had the time to focus on gathering the material necessary to provide a clear, coherent comment.

[HoomanHQ]

Thanks, @tgrecojs! There's quite a backstory to this layout, discussed at length during the sig-docs meeting.

We went through three iterations before landing on this design. The idea is to keep everything in a single layout, with clear separation between 'User Docs' and 'Engineering Docs'.

Previously, we had a version with two buttons at the top: 'User Docs' and 'Engineering Docs'. Clicking 'User Docs' would open the respective tree, and vice versa.

I believe we should stick with this current layout unless there's strong agreement from all stakeholders to change it.

Thank you