#3360 Should add Well-Understood paper to front page description

[daijingz]

In this issue, I believe my overthinking complicated the problem and confused me. All information is stated in the issue. #3360 @JacquesCarette Please take a look.

[daijingz]

@JacquesCarette Dr.Carette, now I updated both README.md and the website. You can see my updates at the end of the About section. This time I have uploaded the old position paper, the poster, and the new Well-Understood Paper. (Three things!) Before some general links had already referred to the old position paper on the webpage, however, they were not targeting to the old position paper directly, so I added a direct link to the old position paper too.

More information will be discussed later tomorrow.

[daijingz]

@balacij Jason, there is a serious problem with Stable comparisons:

The log temporary files show my changes on the website, which means that the differences were detected with the stable repository. However, before I have already tried to use the command make stabilize to stabilize everything, but this error still occurs. Because the command make stabilize only stabilizes all generated examples, it does not stabilize the website, then I guess this is the problem.

My previous step: make -> make stabilize -> make -> ERROR The command make stabilize does not update my changes on the website copy in the stable folder What other commands we can use to update the stable folder?

@JacquesCarette Dr.Carette, up to this step, I am ALMOST DONE with this issue.

[daijingz]

@JacquesCarette @balacij In order to pass the test case, I have to modify the stable website with my changes. Now all test cases passed. If you feel my inserted descriptions are not good, I can follow your further guidance. Before I knew the requirements were ambiguous, so my previous strategy was "doing the same thing as our previous action". Some wordings are directly duplicated from README.md. -> You know there was no better choice before.

I just read the paper and there is my understanding inside my updates.

While editing styles, I followed the given guidance, where every line cannot be too long. Any questions please inform me.

[daijingz]

@JacquesCarette Dr.Carette, from previous feedback, it looks like there are some requirements about writing documentation and websites. Unfortunately, right now my viewable information is too limited. (Your expected documentation quality will be achieved.)

One important confusion before was the writing styles differences between the Drasil website, README, and the documentations. I feel README is casual because most of its things are flexibly introduced. However, websites and documentations are high-level formal.

This mixture resulted in my messy understanding of writing requirements. I am modifying my writing to formal styles.

[daijingz]

@JacquesCarette Dr.Carette, I feel this update has already cleanned up all perviously-mentioned problems. Can you have an inspection as soon as possible? I am still checking if there are some extra inconsistencies here.

[JacquesCarette]

I did check a couple of weeks ago, but it was still full of problems, and I don't have the time to comment on them all - it would take me less time to just fix it all myself. So I did nothing.

[daijingz]

@JacquesCarette @balacij I believe all your unsatisfied problems occurred only in wording, that is, I use inaccurate or inappropriate words in the field of naming variables functions, and comments. Let me show all the problems susceptible:

1. "oldPaperWiki". In my opinion, the word "Wiki" refers to "a group of objects", but this variable refers to a single repository, so I should not call it "Wiki". -> (I did not find other examples, because almost all variable names had "Wiki" at the end.)
2. Extrra construction of variable "danContributionPath". This is because if I directly insert the long URLs inside the code line, one single line may be too long, so I just use the same way to divide the long URL address into multiple different parts.
3. Content of "aboutParagraph10". Because I am quite uncertain about what is the correct wording of a sentence, I used the same sentence as what we had on README.md last time. (At least it does not have any problems)

Unlike normal problems, issues about wording are much harder to solve because they do not have a stringent standard. According to the wording issue, there are some other problems occurring in this submission.

@JacquesCarette @balacij Dr.Carette and Jason, this is my dilemma. Before I named these without considering its meanings. (My strategy is to strictly follows the format. Now I realized the importane of a proper wording in the program.) Please inform me more requirements about it.

[daijingz]

@JacquesCarette this is the completion of my second update on this issue. At least all mentioned points have been covered, and I did not see similar problems occurring in my updates. Please have an inspection, and I will be more careful of understanding objects' meanings next time.

One thing you may forget is, that I repaired errors after your suggestions quickly, so that these errors has been recovered within a little time. In order to save your time and get assistance from others, I am going to consult Jason, Sam, and Jiaming.