<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<small>Hello documentation folks,<br>
I'm Tobias a graphics designer and visualisation enthusiast.<br>
<br>
Motivation/ proposals:<br>
|> restructuration discussion (*again):<br>
The wiki shouldn't be the place where only Blender features are
described.<br>
The wiki could also be a place to learn: fundamentals!<br>
<br>
This is inspired by Mike Bailey's (Oregon State University) annual
Siggraph seminar: "Fundamentals Seminar"<br>
both free at <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://cs.oregonstate.edu/~mjb/fundsem">http://cs.oregonstate.edu/~mjb/fundsem</a><br>
or <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.siggraph.org/learn/conference-content">http://www.siggraph.org/learn/conference-content</a> <br>
at sg 2015 courses<br>
<br>
Fundamentals that means separating basic knowledge (static) from
version specific feature descriptions (dynamic).<br>
It's solves the problem of migrating content between versions at
some degree.<br>
Of cause it has do be newly written content at the start parallel
to the existing.</small><br>
<small>To combine the best out wiki-books linearity and the
classical tree structure.<br>
</small><small>Adding it to the branches is no alternative, because
the clarity gets totally lost.<br>
<br>
The grand structure (prealpha)<br>
The aim is 2 print paper sides per section:<br>
<br>
I. Blender Introduction<br>
<br>
II. Computer Graphics Fundamentals <br>
0. Introduction<br>
1. Simulation<br>
2. Modeling<br>
light, light transport, matter, materials (matter-light
interaction)<br>
2.1 Mathematics<br>
2.2 Physics<br>
2.3 Animation<br>
3. Interdisciplinary<br>
<br>
III. Blender Manual<br>
<br>
(+) pros:<br>
minimal educated community members. Turning noobs into beginners™<br>
avoid frustration<br>
give orientation<br>
interdisciplinary knowledge<br>
maintainability (independence of blender versions)<br>
easier wiki writing<br>
continuous reading<br>
not only implemented content, flexibility (add-ons, future)<br>
answer FAQ-questions<br>
<br>
(-) cons:<br>
spending time, if the existing isn't even finished<br>
challenging to fit the wide scope<br>
separation of connected content<br>
it already exists (somewhere, scattered)<br>
if full implemented: skinny feature desc. (place for how to lists)<br>
<br>
|> Citation: Don't send people to tutorials - link to: Science!<br>
I propose a recommended literature hint "further reading" at the
end of each side.<br>
this could be: paper name, authors, year, trivial name; + DOI -
number... <br>
<br>
"Phong-shader": "Illumination for computer generated pictures",
Phong B.-T., 1975<br>
<br>
To be then googled by the user - avoids dead links and law issues.<br>
Research papers contain in the appendix always the same set of
citation reference,<br>
the count of these papers is not high - it should be doable. <br>
There are also surveys, state of the art reports (star) and
dissertation for the degree of doctor.<br>
Maybe we can connect the citation with BibTex.xml files.<br>
<br>
If the fundamental proposal is not declined, I gonna elaborate the
idea further.<br>
<br>
Tobias<br>
<br>
<br>
</small>
</body>
</html>