<html>
<head>
<style><!--
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Tahoma
}
--></style></head>
<body class='hmmessage'><div dir='ltr'>
Great to have you back again, Jared. You've obviously put a lot of effort into documenting the new mesh features. Please, can you tell me how to look at your new pages?<BR> <BR>I agree that mesh section needs some form of layout change - in fact, I think the whole modelling layout in the Manual needs a rework (it's too big). Any other views?<BR> <BR>Regards,<BR>Jim Tucker (sculptorjim)<BR> <BR><br> <BR><div>> From: bf-docboard-request@blender.org<br>> Subject: Bf-docboard Digest, Vol 94, Issue 20<br>> To: bf-docboard@blender.org<br>> Date: Sat, 29 Dec 2012 12:00:01 +0100<br>> <br>> Send Bf-docboard mailing list submissions to<br>> bf-docboard@blender.org<br>> <br>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard<br>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>> bf-docboard-request@blender.org<br>> <br>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>> bf-docboard-owner@blender.org<br>> <br>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>> than "Re: Contents of Bf-docboard digest..."<br>> <br>> <br>> Today's Topics:<br>> <br>> 1. Re: Page Updates - mesh editing; also mesh editing section<br>> thoughts (Kesten Broughton)<br>> 2. Re: Page Updates - mesh editing; also mesh editing section<br>> thoughts (Jared Reisweber)<br>> <br>> <br>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 1<br>> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 08:59:44 -0600<br>> From: Kesten Broughton <solarmobiletrailers@gmail.com><br>> Subject: Re: [Bf-docboard] Page Updates - mesh editing; also mesh<br>> editing section thoughts<br>> To: Blender Documentation Project <bf-docboard@blender.org><br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAO2fFsXwRsp8v5KhYc1zo3k9XyUjQWuxLtH=wEpEGF3FgFosQQ@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> <br>> Nice work jared,<br>> <br>> 1. I had a quick look at a few pages and they look good. If anyone has<br>> time for a thorough critique of a page or two, go ahead, but Jared is an<br>> experienced contributor so edit away!<br>> <br>> 2. Did mindrones and co have a process for structural changes to the wiki?<br>> If so, we should put Jared's suggestions through it. If not, I suggest we<br>> use this list for discussion of the proposed adds/removals. Perhaps after<br>> a week, we can announce the proposed changes to bf-committers to get buy-in<br>> from them as well.<br>> <br>> 3. Regarding sections, I agree it's tough to tell between a ==section 2==<br>> and ===section 3==. I would be open to suggestions for adding additional<br>> notation to distinguish them, however, this might be a bit of a project to<br>> retroactively refit the whole wiki to maintain consistency. A short script<br>> would probably do it, but someone has to write and test it. If wikimedia<br>> says one ==section1== per page, i'd be reluctant to ignore that unless<br>> there were very strong arguments for it.<br>> <br>> kesten<br>> <br>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Jared Reisweber <jaredr122@gmail.com>wrote:<br>> <br>> > Hello, I've decided to return to help work on the wiki. (I'll try not to<br>> > screw it up this time). It would be great to see it get finished next year.<br>> > I've updated a bunch of mesh editing pages to reflect 2.6 and added some<br>> > images:<br>> > basic editing, smooth, noise, shrink/fatten, vertex editing, mirror<br>> > editing, face editing, mirror, edge editing, knife tool, bevel (most of<br>> > these were empty).<br>> > There's a bit more work todo on some of these pages.<br>> > It's kind of alarming to see how many page views some of these empty pages<br>> > have...<br>> ><br>> > I'd like to try to help update the pages to reflect all the 2.6 mesh<br>> > editing features, however I think the organization of this section may need<br>> > some reworking in the future (irrelevant pages, missing pages, etc.).<br>> > Currently the pages in this section are the same as the 2.4 manual, but<br>> > many new tools have been added.<br>> > Right now, there are some sections for individual mesh tools, however only<br>> > a portion of them. If mesh tools are going to have their own page, I would<br>> > think all of them should probably have their own page, except for very<br>> > similar tools, e.g. fill/beauty fill. However, I'm not positive that many<br>> > of the mesh tools are significant enough to have their own page, though<br>> > there should be some consistency. There may be some redundancy with some of<br>> > the existing pages, for example, Vertex/Edge/Face Editing, where some tools<br>> > on those pages are not exclusive to vertices/edges/faces.<br>> ><br>> > Pages that should probably be removed from index, as they are now options<br>> > in other tools:<br>> > Spin dup, Subdivide fractal, subdivide smooth, Extrude dup(extinct?)<br>> > New tools I'm not sure where to put:<br>> > Vertex connect, wireframe, inset, unsubdivide<br>> ><br>> > Anyways, here is an outline<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jYTZoT3l263fp36mbp8NAPK_sKgeJIMmacd0KOsHA18/edit>of all the existing core mesh tools arranged by roughly by category (red<br>> > text indicates tools not yet documented). I did want to put out the<br>> > possibility of having page links go to sections of pages, maybe. This would<br>> > allow all the tools to be exposed on the index page, but not have to have<br>> > so many small individual pages. Just a thought.<br>> ><br>> > In the meantime, I will continue to help update this section as best I can.<br>> ><br>> > Regarding page formatting, I keep seeing pages for things where there is a<br>> > single =section1=, and all other sections are ==section2== and<br>> > ===section3=== under the first section. It's visually very hard to tell the<br>> > difference between a section2 and a section3. Is there a standard for how<br>> > sections in pages should work? It would be nice if there was a better way<br>> > of differentiating between section2/section3 and so on, like an indent, or<br>> > something. According to the mediawiki docs, there should only be one<br>> > section1, but I find that it makes pages difficult to read.<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Bf-docboard mailing list<br>> > Bf-docboard@blender.org<br>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard<br>> ><br>> ><br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> <br>> Kesten Broughton<br>> President and Technology Director,<br>> Solar Mobile Trailers<br>> kesten@solarmobiletrailers.com<br>> www.sunfarmkitchens.ca <http://www.sunfarmkitchens.ca><br>> 512 701 4209<br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20121228/93605110/attachment.html <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> Message: 2<br>> Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2012 12:40:58 -0800<br>> From: Jared Reisweber <jaredr122@gmail.com><br>> Subject: Re: [Bf-docboard] Page Updates - mesh editing; also mesh<br>> editing section thoughts<br>> To: Blender Documentation Project <bf-docboard@blender.org><br>> Message-ID:<br>> <CAJgraRRMNJvMbFcwXWNpSmb-pSKPz5+=FOJ11kNf30G-ND5wpg@mail.gmail.com><br>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>> <br>> cool, thanks.<br>> <br>> -2. I'm not sure what the right organization of this section is exactly.<br>> It's hard to categorize some tools, like the new rip fill for example; its<br>> a vertex/edge operation, but it also creates faces, and both separates and<br>> adds geometry, while it is closely related to the normal rip tool, which is<br>> under vertex editing.<br>> <br>> -3. In autodesk manuals, there is a page title, section2 is a "bar" (text<br>> with background color that spans the page width), section3 is bold text,<br>> and a section4 is a bar again, but is indented. Something to this effect<br>> might be better: (http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:IndentSections),<br>> indent section3 and up, and reserve section 1 for page titles. Or promote<br>> section2 to section1 style , and 3 to 2, then indent starting section4.<br>> They also have different text color/weight for "terms," ( equivalent of<br>> {{Literal|..}}) which helps them stand out better from their description,<br>> which I think would be an improvement as well.<br>> <br>> On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 6:59 AM, Kesten Broughton <<br>> solarmobiletrailers@gmail.com> wrote:<br>> <br>> > Nice work jared,<br>> ><br>> > 1. I had a quick look at a few pages and they look good. If anyone has<br>> > time for a thorough critique of a page or two, go ahead, but Jared is an<br>> > experienced contributor so edit away!<br>> ><br>> > 2. Did mindrones and co have a process for structural changes to the<br>> > wiki? If so, we should put Jared's suggestions through it. If not, I<br>> > suggest we use this list for discussion of the proposed adds/removals.<br>> > Perhaps after a week, we can announce the proposed changes to<br>> > bf-committers to get buy-in from them as well.<br>> ><br>> > 3. Regarding sections, I agree it's tough to tell between a ==section 2==<br>> > and ===section 3==. I would be open to suggestions for adding additional<br>> > notation to distinguish them, however, this might be a bit of a project to<br>> > retroactively refit the whole wiki to maintain consistency. A short script<br>> > would probably do it, but someone has to write and test it. If wikimedia<br>> > says one ==section1== per page, i'd be reluctant to ignore that unless<br>> > there were very strong arguments for it.<br>> ><br>> > kesten<br>> ><br>> > On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 3:05 AM, Jared Reisweber <jaredr122@gmail.com>wrote:<br>> ><br>> >> Hello, I've decided to return to help work on the wiki. (I'll try not to<br>> >> screw it up this time). It would be great to see it get finished next year.<br>> >> I've updated a bunch of mesh editing pages to reflect 2.6 and added some<br>> >> images:<br>> >> basic editing, smooth, noise, shrink/fatten, vertex editing, mirror<br>> >> editing, face editing, mirror, edge editing, knife tool, bevel (most of<br>> >> these were empty).<br>> >> There's a bit more work todo on some of these pages.<br>> >> It's kind of alarming to see how many page views some of these empty<br>> >> pages have...<br>> >><br>> >> I'd like to try to help update the pages to reflect all the 2.6 mesh<br>> >> editing features, however I think the organization of this section may need<br>> >> some reworking in the future (irrelevant pages, missing pages, etc.).<br>> >> Currently the pages in this section are the same as the 2.4 manual, but<br>> >> many new tools have been added.<br>> >> Right now, there are some sections for individual mesh tools, however<br>> >> only a portion of them. If mesh tools are going to have their own page, I<br>> >> would think all of them should probably have their own page, except for<br>> >> very similar tools, e.g. fill/beauty fill. However, I'm not positive that<br>> >> many of the mesh tools are significant enough to have their own page,<br>> >> though there should be some consistency. There may be some redundancy with<br>> >> some of the existing pages, for example, Vertex/Edge/Face Editing, where<br>> >> some tools on those pages are not exclusive to vertices/edges/faces.<br>> >><br>> >> Pages that should probably be removed from index, as they are now options<br>> >> in other tools:<br>> >> Spin dup, Subdivide fractal, subdivide smooth, Extrude dup(extinct?)<br>> >> New tools I'm not sure where to put:<br>> >> Vertex connect, wireframe, inset, unsubdivide<br>> >><br>> >> Anyways, here is an outline<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jYTZoT3l263fp36mbp8NAPK_sKgeJIMmacd0KOsHA18/edit>of all the existing core mesh tools arranged by roughly by category (red<br>> >> text indicates tools not yet documented). I did want to put out the<br>> >> possibility of having page links go to sections of pages, maybe. This would<br>> >> allow all the tools to be exposed on the index page, but not have to have<br>> >> so many small individual pages. Just a thought.<br>> >><br>> >> In the meantime, I will continue to help update this section as best I<br>> >> can.<br>> >><br>> >> Regarding page formatting, I keep seeing pages for things where there is<br>> >> a single =section1=, and all other sections are ==section2== and<br>> >> ===section3=== under the first section. It's visually very hard to tell the<br>> >> difference between a section2 and a section3. Is there a standard for how<br>> >> sections in pages should work? It would be nice if there was a better way<br>> >> of differentiating between section2/section3 and so on, like an indent, or<br>> >> something. According to the mediawiki docs, there should only be one<br>> >> section1, but I find that it makes pages difficult to read.<br>> >><br>> >> _______________________________________________<br>> >> Bf-docboard mailing list<br>> >> Bf-docboard@blender.org<br>> >> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard<br>> >><br>> >><br>> ><br>> ><br>> > --<br>> ><br>> > Kesten Broughton<br>> > President and Technology Director,<br>> > Solar Mobile Trailers<br>> > kesten@solarmobiletrailers.com<br>> > www.sunfarmkitchens.ca <http://www.sunfarmkitchens.ca><br>> > 512 701 4209<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Bf-docboard mailing list<br>> > Bf-docboard@blender.org<br>> > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard<br>> ><br>> ><br>> -------------- next part --------------<br>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>> URL: http://lists.blender.org/pipermail/bf-docboard/attachments/20121228/7fe10086/attachment-0001.htm <br>> <br>> ------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Bf-docboard mailing list<br>> Bf-docboard@blender.org<br>> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard<br>> <br>> <br>> End of Bf-docboard Digest, Vol 94, Issue 20<br>> *******************************************<br></div> </div></body>
</html>