Hi Ton, Jason, and fellow colleagues,<br><br>Ton, I totally agree with your proposal for a series of references based on logical, separated features. It's far superior to a huge, telephone book size book, which would be expensive in terms of both time and money and would be out of date as soon as it was published. And Jason, I agree with your proposal that the division be based on task and discipline rather than user skill. We can always refer the user to other sources, printed or online, to fill in knowledge gaps.<br>
<br>In thinking about this some more, I'd like us to consider the following:<br><br>1) What value added would these reference books have? Jason, if we assume that the user already understands the basic principles and only wants to find out what a particular button does without having to experiment, what do we do now? We Google it. Just for fun, in 2.49b, I found a button whose function I didn't know about (that's easy to do, in my case, since I have about 6 months of Blender experience): the PrSpeed button in the Anim settings. I then Googled blender PrSpeed documentation (without the quotes because otherwise the whole phrase is needed for a match). The first two links gave me the answer right off the bat. When was the last time you used a printed reference book instead of Googling it? <br>
<br>We already have excellent online documentation, in the form of the wiki. It is organized very closely to the ideas that have been proposed. Reading the wiki has helped me tremendously. Between the wiki and Google, what more would the reference book(s) provide?<br>
<br>As my personal example, I have over 35 years of computer programming experience, but I didn't know anything about Python programming until about 2 weeks ago. Thirty five years ago, learning my first language (COBOL), way before the Internet, I had to sit with a stack of thick IBM manuals, with a lot of pulling my hair out, and a lot of trial and error, to get up to speed. It took about 9 to 12 months to feel competent enough, as I recall. With the help of the online Python tutorials, I feel I know the basics. If I need to know more, the online API docs, and browsing the Internet if I have a problem, are sufficient. I have no need to buy a Python book. Isn't that the same situation you're in, with regards to animation or rigging? In order to get a market, a printed book has to offer something more than the online sources. <br>
<br>2) Length of book publishing cycle. From initial concept to printed book, what with editing, rewriting, figuring out what the cover should look like, artwork, and production, it takes a long time, possibly as much as a year. Which leads me to: <br>
<br>3) Blender version changes. We have no control, nor do we want to have such control, over the Blender development process. New features will be added, the user interface will be improved, some features will be dropped, others merged with some other feature (there's a discussion right now going on about merging Soft Bodies and Cloth simulators on bf-committers). This is exactly what should happen. What changes have occurred in Blender in the past year? How would that have affected the authors of the Blender reference book?<br>
<br>I still think the project is an excellent one. I just would like us to consider these issues. I look forward to contributing to the project's success, and would be excited to do so. Just as an aside, in all my years of working with software, I have never worked with a program so fully featured and creative as Blender. More importantly, I have been totally blown away by the amazing creativity, knowledge, commitment, and willingness to share, of the Blender community. And that's not even considering the price. :)<br>
<br>Best wishes,<br>Ira<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 10:41 AM, Jason van Gumster <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jason@handturkeystudios.com">jason@handturkeystudios.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Hello Ira (and the rest of the list),<br>
<br>
Apologies in advance for this long email. :)<br>
<br>
If you'll allow me to toss my two cents into the ring here, I think you've<br>
raised some interesting points, but I also think you're making this more<br>
complicated than it needs to be. My understanding of reference manuals is that<br>
the assumption should be that the reader is competent and likely to use the<br>
reference alongside separate documentation of technique and implementation. The<br>
only exception to this would be the notion of a "beginner's reference".<br>
However, I don't think it would be wise for a Blender reference manual to assume<br>
responsibility for teaching users the fundamental principles of each of the<br>
various disciplines Blender is used for. For instance, using your example of<br>
Blender 2.5 Python, the reference should assume that the reader already has a<br>
basic understanding of programming principles (or is getting that information<br>
elsewhere). Using an example that's closer to my heart, reference documentation<br>
of Blender's character animation tools shouldn't have to explain principles<br>
like anticipation or squash and stretch. That kind of information is covered in<br>
greater thoroughness and detail in other texts. A reference manual should<br>
acknowledge these principles and perhaps direct the reader to external<br>
instruction, but trying to comprehensively encompass all of that material in a<br>
single book (or series of books) is well beyond the scope of a reference and<br>
would take far too long to complete (let alone maintain).<br>
<br>
That said, the idea of having a series of reference guides is a good one. Like<br>
Ton, however, I would recommend that the breakdown not revolve around user<br>
skill. Instead, I'd suggest that guides be broken down by task/discipline.<br>
Ton's separations appear logical to me, though I would suggest adding another<br>
pair of books in the series: one that's devoted to Blender's rigging tools<br>
(wrapping this in a reference on the animation system is likely to overload<br>
that book with content) and one that expands on the quick-start guide to get<br>
new users up-and-running as quickly as possible (though I suppose the updated<br>
Essential Blender would fill this role nicely).<br>
<br>
A comprehensive reference (or set of references) like the 2.3 manual is<br>
certainly something that's overdue for Blender. As for the idea of publishing<br>
something like this on an annual basis, I'm not sure which way to lean. A lot<br>
of it depends on how much changes or gets added to Blender in the course of a<br>
year. Ideally, once infrastructure for this kind of reference is set up,<br>
changes and new features could be updated as they come out, but even with the<br>
current wiki, that's been tough to maintain. Also, if the idea is to go with a<br>
series of reference guides, it raises the following question: will people be<br>
more inclined to purchase a single, massive comprehensive manual or just the<br>
reference guides that pertain to their particular interest/discipline? And will<br>
enough people purchase annually updated versions to make it worth publishing<br>
them?<br>
<br>
These are all interesting questions and I would definitely like to be involved<br>
with determining their answers.<br>
<br>
Again, my qpologies for the long email! Hopefully it's helpful.<br>
<br>
-Fweeb<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Ira Krakow <<a href="mailto:ira.krakow@gmail.com">ira.krakow@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> Hi Ton,<br>
><br>
> Your idea about a Reference Guide is an excellent one. The problem,<br>
> however, is that one size doesn't fit all. Everyone has a different level<br>
> of Blender knowledge, so that something one person might think is too self<br>
> evident might be new information for someone else.<br>
><br>
> For example, how should Blender 2.5 Python be documented? If someone<br>
> already knows the principles of OOP, classes, methods, attributes,<br>
> inheritance, and so on, and knows Python, then the current API<br>
> documentation, which lists the classes and methods, is just fine. If<br>
> someone doesn't understand OOP, or, for that matter, is new to programming,<br>
> the current documentation is insufficient and a reference guide would have<br>
> an entirely different look.<br>
><br>
> This principle works with other parts of Blender. Do we expect users of the<br>
> animation reference to be seasoned 3D animators, or do they need a reference<br>
> to animation basics as well? The same goes for rigging, lighting,<br>
> texturing, etc., etc.<br>
><br>
> I think we need, instead of one comprehensive reference guide, a series of<br>
> guides for different aspects of Blender, geared for different levels of<br>
> user. The "Noob to Pro" book is an excellent first step to get beginners up<br>
> to speed, but we can't really expect everyone to be expert in all aspects of<br>
> Blender. So perhaps I'm suggesting a series of reference guides?<br>
><br>
> These are just some preliminary thoughts, to start the conversation. The<br>
> goal is a very worthy one.<br>
><br>
> Best wishes,<br>
> Ira<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 8:14 AM, Ton Roosendaal <<a href="mailto:ton@blender.org">ton@blender.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi all,<br>
> ><br>
> > Writing Blender books for (commercial) publishers is already a good<br>
> > and common bizz nowadays. I can only recommend anyone who is<br>
> > interested in this to contact publishers with good plans!<br>
> ><br>
> > Blender Foundation is also publisher, we did this initially also to<br>
> > open up the market for Blender in bookstores. That's not really needed<br>
> > anymore. :)<br>
> ><br>
> > What would be useful though is still:<br>
> > - have about one book published per year to get additional income<br>
> > - support the current active documentation volunteers<br>
> > - have good quality, open and free docs in wiki.<br>
> ><br>
> > I'd like to get two projects running for this.<br>
> > One is for an updated "Blender Essential 2.5" book, for that I'll<br>
> > first work with the team who has done the first Essential book.<br>
> ><br>
> > Another project is to check on the feasibility for a good (annual?)<br>
> > printed reference guide. Check for example how the 2.3 guide reference<br>
> > was done, I still think a good example of useful reference content for<br>
> > users (includes screenshots etc).<br>
> > Would there be a useful and efficient way to organize this? To get<br>
> > both a great printed book as content for wiki? How? Who? :)<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks,<br>
> ><br>
> > -Ton-<br>
</div></div><div><div></div><div class="h5">_______________________________________________<br>
Bf-docboard mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Bf-docboard@blender.org">Bf-docboard@blender.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard" target="_blank">http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Watch my Blender 3D videos:<br><a href="http://www.youtube.com/irakrakow">http://www.youtube.com/irakrakow</a><br><br>Subscribe to my Blender 3D forum:<br><a href="http://forum.irakrakow.com">http://forum.irakrakow.com</a><br>