<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Hello Ton,
</p>
<div class="moz-forward-container">
<p>But it's like removing the tooltips and then declare everyone
has to know B. before using it.<br>
Less work to write tooltips frees time for more bug fixing, thus
results in a better user experience - right?<br>
Not finding something in the manual is like when B. crashes or a
missing feature. That bad, but what should count is the average
UX.<br>
</p>
<p>I'm not happy with the new rigging page: Lists are super
unpleasant to read and it's an overview - summaries of subpages
(see previous mail - other thread).<br>
Especially the 'mixed editors' chapters need a proper intro.<br>
I agree that some of the intros are not in good shape, but
that's not a bigger problem than with any other kind of doc:<br>
References are less free and fixing issues there has simply a
higher priority.<br>
e.g. the examples at the <a
href="https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/compositing/types/converter/math.html#examples">Math
Node</a> and the <a
href="https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/compositing/types/color/mix.html#examples">Mix
Node</a><font color="#000000">.</font><br>
I agree that lengthy intros should be made more condense.<br>
But the methodology should be just lowering the priority and
"fade it out"/discontinuing it by not creating any new ones.<br>
And clearly not to plainly deleting them - like tearing down a
half build building.</p>
<p>I don't know what should be more fundamental in animation than
keyframes. <br>
And I don't get why it may be confusing. The definition of a
keyframe as a point in time linked to a (discreet) value<br>
might be overly wide, but it's correct and it's also called that
way in the UI.<br>
The curve defines the interpolation between the keyframes
mathematically represented as curve points.<br>
Accordingly the points in the Dope Sheet are keyframes.<br>
</p>
<p>With the "designer" view point you mean programmer (software
designer) I guess.<br>
If you're generally tech interested it might be suited, but not
for artists.<br>
Or do you mean functional descriptions 'hit the button this will
happen'.<br>
But that's only one of several types of doc with it's advantages
and disadvantages.<br>
The latter have to be addressed by applying other types that
serve better.<br>
It's the task of a user manual to explain how to use something
without having to struggle with the "inner workings".</p>
<p>Blender in context of CG vs. Blender's quirks ;)<br>
There is no B. specific big picture, but common CS/CG methods.<br>
The latter is not how good doc works. It should start with the
familiar (or fill it in), then add details and point out
differences.</p>
<p> CG has such a wide range of disciplines there isn't a single
knowledge base.<br>
e.g. if one just does modeling plus 3D printing and not
animation.<br>
Then there arises the problem what is considered basic, this
will lead to troublesome inconsistencies. <br>
</p>
<p> This would have serious consequences and thus have to be
handled with care:<br>
</p>
We shouldn't forget who the audience is and who is willing to
write it.<br>
Ultimately the manual will turn from a primary source into a
secondary source:<br>
Blogs and video tutorials, etc. which then transfer it into user
friendly content.<br>
The result will be a step to pure reference and will turn out bone
dry and boring to read/write.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Tobias<br>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Am 11.12.2017 um 17:57 schrieb Ton
Roosendaal:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:46076564-D767-45F6-8654-B4083939083D@blender.org">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
Hi,
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Dropping age mention altogether is fine. Bastien's
wording feels fine for me:</div>
<div class="">
<ul style="background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);" class="">
<li class="">People educated on CG, who already understand the
basics of 3D and/or know other 3D software.</li>
</ul>
<div class="">Tobias: it's especially the beginner-based pages
that made me propose the manual focus. I noticed some
disappeared already (like the rigging page), which is nice.
But it's still weird in places; for example this:</div>
</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><a
href="https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/animation/keyframes/introduction.html"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/animation/keyframes/introduction.html</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">"Keyframes" is not a good first mental model to
explain how Blender animation works.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Same here - is confusing.</div>
<div class=""><a
href="https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/animation/actions.html"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://docs.blender.org/manual/en/dev/animation/actions.html</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Blender works with Actions, which have channels, and
these have curves. The curve consists of points, usually
Beziers. </div>
<div class="">The term "inserting key" means you insert a bezier
point with handles in a curve in a specific channel. These
points get visualized as keys in dopesheets.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Explaining Blender from the point of the designer
(how it works) will lead to much less confused users, and to
much better understanding for mastering it without reading a
manual all the time. That's why I suggested to also focus on
presenting the big picture, to make people understand the inner
workings in general.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<div class="">
<div style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica;
font-size: 13px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps:
normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal;
orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px;
text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;
-webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;">-Ton-<br class="">
<br class="">
--------------------------------------------------------<br
class="">
Ton Roosendaal - <a href="mailto:ton@blender.org" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">ton@blender.org</a> - <a
href="http://www.blender.org" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">www.blender.org</a><br class="">
Chairman Blender Foundation, Director Blender Institute<br
class="">
Entrepotdok 57A, 1018 AD, Amsterdam, the Netherlands</div>
</div>
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On 8 Dec 2017, at 19:20, Tobias Heinke <<a
href="mailto:heinke.tobias@t-online.de" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">heinke.tobias@t-online.de</a>>
wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<div class="">Hi all,<br class="">
<br class="">
It should be a credo/creed - it doesn't have to be
accurate or even realistic. It's what we try to achieve
(in a perfect world).<br class="">
And about what makes the manual different from other
source of info about B. The aim should be one condense
sentence.<br class="">
<br class="">
I generally like the current mission statement, but what
about replacing the "you" with "readers".<br class="">
It's an info for people who hopefully become
contributors and not for the readers. Also the triple
"to" should be addressed:<br class="">
<br class="">
"This manual aims to be a complete and concise
source of information to help (the) readers (to) become
familiar with the application."<br class="">
<br class="">
About Ton's remarks:<br class="">
The described target group is/should be only the core
audience. (as already pointed out)<br class="">
An age is only a codification of certain skills reached
(by school edu.) with ~18: advanced math & physics
and basic computer science.<br class="">
Expecting basic 3D is contrary to the current situation.
We explain the basics e.g. what an edge, face, or a
keyframe is, but not advanced/expert topics.<br class="">
The "internal (technical) design" would mean
data-blocks, dependency graph? such topics are currently
barely covert would be<br class="">
only of interest for experts and add-on devs. That would
be on the edge to code documentation.<br class="">
<br class="">
Regards,<br class="">
Tobias<br>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>