<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">Hi Tobias,</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">thanks for writing! Before further discussing your proposal I have a couple of questions:</div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;"><br></div><div id="bloop_customfont" style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; color: rgba(0,0,0,1.0); margin: 0px; line-height: auto;">- did you get in touch/connected with any of the current documentation maintainers? (on IRC or <a href="https://developer.blender.org/project/view/53/">https://developer.blender.org/project/view/53/</a>)</div> - have you used the current manual, and what is your opinion about it?<div><br></div><div>I think the high quality, high level introduction text you are talking about would be great to have, but we still need more people to take ownership of existing sections of the manual.<br><div><div><br></div><div>Best regards,<br> <div id="bloop_sign_1453218465622161920" class="bloop_sign"><div style="font-family:helvetica,arial;font-size:13px">Francesco</div></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 18 January 2016 at 21:23:40, Tobias Heinke (<a href="mailto:heinke.tobias@t-online.de">heinke.tobias@t-online.de</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<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>
_______________________________________________
<br>Bf-docboard mailing list
<br>Bf-docboard@blender.org
<br>http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
<br></div></div></span></blockquote></div></div></div></body></html>