[Bf-docboard] Documentation status and upgrade proposal

[koil .]

Hi.
I like the new webpage.
Some questions and feedback.

I like the way the TOC auto minimizes the other categories.

One thing I like about the wiki.blender pages, is the header navigation on the right side.
Heres a picture: http://www.pasteall.org/pic/70888
Small monitors dont always show it by default.
Its useful to navigate big pages quickly.

http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/html/compositing/composite_editor.html#node-editor-window-actions
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Composite_Nodes/Editor#Node_Editor_Window_Actions
On this page it looks like a list of editing commands, without the shortcuts.
So I guess the shortcuts are not implemented yet.

The webpage looks good to me. Im still comparing some pages.

Koilz.

________________________________
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:41:36 +0200 
> From: francesco.siddi at gmail.com 
> To: bf-docboard at blender.org 
> Subject: [Bf-docboard] Documentation status and upgrade proposal 
>  
> Hello everybody, 
>  
> after some conversations about how to improve Blender's documentation  
> system, we have worked out a proposal to migrate the Blender User  
> Manual to Sphinx (the same documentation system currently used for  
> Blender's API). 
>  
> Blender’s Wiki manual is not evenly maintained, while a new technology  
> doesn’t solve the problem of writing a manual, it may help us to better  
> maintain an important document. 
>  
> Wikis are really good for having many interlinking pages (like  
> Wikipedia), but less will suited for managing a structured document 
>  
> Pros: 
> - Documentation can be edited and updated locally (no need to edit  
> online as with a wiki). 
> - Documentation can be output to various formats, HTML, PDF & EPUB. 
> - Documentation can be downloaded locally by users or even included  
> with Blender releases. 
> - The manual can be versioned (currently the Wiki has problems with  
> documentation for different Blender versions). 
> - The manual organization can be managed more easily in terms of the  
> overall structure. 
> - RestructuredText can be parsed by Python for creating better tools to  
> automatically manage/validate docs. 
>  
> Cons: 
> - Some people may prefer MediaWiki since its well known. 
> - No integrated online editing capability. 
>  
> Managing images via GIT is one if a weaknesses in the proposal, so we  
> will keep open the option to store them outside of GIT (use SVN as we  
> do for Blender libs), or create new git repos for major Blender version  
> changes to avoid the burden of binary files becoming too much over  
> time. 
>  
> You can find more details about this proposal here  
> [http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/html/readme.html], and you  
> can see a working prototype with Cycles documentation  
> [http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/html/cycles_rendering/index.html]. 
>  
> Some maintenance is planned on the existing MediaWiki system as well.  
> In particular we would like to: 
> - Update or replace the current Naiad theme (not working well on mobile) 
> - Attempt to fix the NavTree (always broken due to caching) 
> - Update the MediaWiki software 
>  
> If the user documentation proposal is successful, wiki.blender.org,  
> will keep hosting all development documents and material that does not  
> fit the user manual. 
>  
> Feedback on this proposal is very much appreciated at this point. 
>  
> Thanks, 
> Campbell Barton and Francesco Siddi 
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________ Bf-docboard mailing  
> list Bf-docboard at blender.org  
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard