1- In previous versions of the help documentation, there were three arrow page navigation buttons: ‘back’ ‘up’ and ‘forward’. IMO, this was intuitive and allowed me to scan through a subject in a more or less LINEAR manner (without skipping anything important) like perusing a manual. But these simple navigation buttons are missing. Why?
In the new system, although there is a ‘navigation topic box’ at upper left of the webpage, the very limited ‘tree outline’ format it displays is basically just irritating to me.
For one thing, the indentation of the subtopics is not pronounced enough (compare with the indentation in the index), so it is difficult to tell what is a main topic and what is a subtopic.
Another consequence is that since the topic/subtopic format *changes* relative to what page is being displayed, the positions of the topics headings on the page also change, so I cannot keep my cursor in the same basic place to click to move forward to the next page (like one could do with ‘back’ ‘up’ ‘forward’ buttons); instead I must figure out each time what topic I’ve seen or am looking at, and where I need to go next. This just slows me down. This seems to be a poor webpage design issue to me.

2- Another issue relates to the beautiful ActiveX Object Model found here:
AutoLISP Developer’s Guide > Using the Visual LISP Environment > Working with ActiveX > Understanding the AutoCAD Object Model.

In previous versions of Help, you could actually click on each type of object shown IN the diagram, such as LightweightPolyline, and you would be taken to a page detailing that object’s properties, methods, etc. I cannot tell you how so VERY useful this flowchart was for me to look up information – but now that linkage to the objects seems to be lost. Why? Who broke it?

I would not be surprised to find other deficiencies in this new online format, but these are two major ones I see right away that are really maddening.

The other measure(s) to be applied to a ‘new’ system, such as this, is to know why it is being attempted and for what reasons? What are the goals Autodesk has set for this system? Is it the case change is being made because change ‘is seen as inevitable’ even though it is not required and, as a result the goals for, and, the measure of the success of ‘the change’, is to be work out by users, on the fly, for Autodesk; instead of, Autodesk setting sensible and measurable goals prior to starting the project?

Maybe the ‘drunken evil leprechaun in the toolshed’ of Revit GUI fame (put a tool down and who know where it will turn up again) has moved from that neighborhood to ‘assist’ us with ACAD Help? Or maybe it’s his (also evil) twin brother?

Perhaps Mr Jobs might like to comment