[Bf-docboard] About the last e-mails received in the bf-docboard list.

[Raindrops From Sky]

Hi Ivan!

Your suggestion about weekly meetings is excellent. Need to fix a slot,
considering that people from around the world are supposed to join. I'll be
there.

*@Documentation for newbies:*
Having created help for multiple products over last 10 years (in all kinds
of media: chm, pdf, Drupal, mediawiki AND videos), I can confirm that you
are absolutely right.

In fact, some users shoot off a line at forum, "how do I....?" The answer is
right there in the manual (which is searchable). I simply help at the forum
with the relevant page number of the User Manual, so that they can help
themselves further.

Sometimes I find that a non-English user cannot understand idiomatic
English. In such cases, I replace the idiomatic English with a simplified
version.

Having said that, I have also felt that another manual in *Cookbook *style
may really help the users. Just the UM may not be enough.

*@Video quality:*
Although internet is full of low-quality videos on Blender, we are talking
about only the best-quality videos, which are picked from the available
videos; or specially made (or even edited/repackaged) specifically for
Blender Foundation.

For example, Neal Hirsig's videos are a direct video equivalent of wiki.

On a higher plane, there are excellent videos at Blendercookie and
Blenderguru, etc.; but it is difficult to fit them in the lesson-plan of the
wiki, as each of them covers multiple techniques/tools. (Users looking for a
particular tool/technique can't know which video covers that topic.)
Probably the solution is to make a text-based TOC for each video, as being
done here <http://meetthegimp.org/> for GIMP.

*@videos vs wiki/books:*
Compare Hirsig's videos with the wiki or the Blender
Basics<http://www.blendernation.com/2009/05/14/blender-basics-book-3rd-edition/>book.
IMHO the videos have more fluency in the learning experience, and
newbies can learn faster with videos as compared to a wiki/book.

But if you have to search for a specific minute detail, no video can match a
wiki.

So both are required.

I never suggested that we should "burn the books". Only that we should
judiciously welcome the new media.

In fact, offline manuals and printed books have their own place in life.
That's why I have been advocating pdf export extensions that convert a wiki
into offline manual and printed book.

*@Translations:*
I had originally imagined that a huge base of authors working in all
languages. But then it turned out to be just three. Therefore the prudent
thing is to focus on English version, which can be treated as the "seed
version" and translated to other languages as and when volunteers are
available.

The three authors cannot attempt to handle the other languages; otherwise
even the English "seed version" won't get finished. That's why I suggested
that we focus on English (and of course leave the translations to others). I
have certainly NOT suggested to close down the other language sections in
wiki.

As in Wikipedia <http://www.wikipedia.org/>, all languages can branch out
from the home page. Each user can bookmark the home page for the language of
his choice.

*@Sandbox:*
Where are the sandboxes in Wikipedia, the mother of all wikis? And yet how
is it able to handle contentious issues (e.g. the geopolitical disputes
between countries, and history as interpreted by nations at war)? Can anyone
question its accuracy or impartiality?

So how did they manage that without using a sandbox?

In comparison, a user manual does not have such violent disagreements. So
why do we need sandboxes here?

A wiki is supposed to be directly edited. Why should you waste YOUR time by
giving suggestions to another author (unless it is a creative suggestion to
change his style for *future* pages?)

And if you do not want to edit someone's script directly, just leave your
comments in the discussion page. Let others comment on the page too. Finally
SOMEONE (not necessarily the original author) will make those changes.

Each wiki page has its own Discussion page. It can hold not only the
comments, but also the mock up of the article itself.

Further, the admin can ban any user if he tries to post spam, and just roll
back his changes.

So what's the problem?

Each tool has its own method of use. Wiki should be used as wiki, not in the
old "*submit your manuscript and I will check it; and if I am not happy,
come back with a different draft*" style.

In wiki, each page starts as a stub, and people add text+images. Others edit
it directly, or drop comments in Discussion page

And of course we have to let only registered user to edit the wiki. It would
be naive to let just anyone edit it and expect no vandalism.

*@drugs:*
Well, I don't know about this topic. I leave that to your judgment.
Aren't Brazilians supposed to be expert producers/consumers? :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20101115/f8a875c6/attachment.htm