[Bf-committers] Including documentation in BCon cycle

[Kel M]

On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Knapp <magick.crow at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:52 PM, mindrones <mindrones at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > On 11/08/2011 03:18 PM, Knapp wrote:
> >
> >>> Maybe it's time to hire someone to get a well documented wiki ;)
> >>
> >> Funny, I was thinking the same thing as I fell asleep last night. One
> >> person in charge of finding the problems and talking with the devs,
> >> coordinating of the writers and pulling together all the docs,
> >
> > what you are saying above is OK for the wiki.
> >
> > As it's being discussed in docboard and #blenderwiki:
> > * we're now reviewing the 2.5 manual (not in good shape at all)
>
> That is for sure. One of the reasons I really liked Blender was the
> 2.4 manual. It was great. I wonder why?
>
> > * we'll install a reviewing system
> > * we'll define a team of reviewers with the rights to accept edits made
> > in wiki, so that the content users will see is always ok
> > * for each blender module (modeling, rigging, etc), we intend to find a
> > 'main' (not exclusive) reviewer that will take care of:
> >  * review and and format contents inserted by devs
> >  * review content inserted by occasional editors
> >  * hunt for new editors (experienced in blender possibly)
> > * these modules reviewers will have to communicate with the main admins
> > (more on this later) to make sure the manual structure/templates/etc are
> > agreed upon.
> >
> > This should be a team work.
> >
> > Though, IMO the first input should come by the developer, which should
> > write even just a draft (no wiki formatting) the tool documentation.
> >
> > Otherwise you get the current problems, also outlined by Francesco.
> >
> > The potential writer has to discover the tool by trial and error, then
> > find the strength to formalize what he has discovered, format it in good
> > wikitext, using blenderwiki templates.
> > Honestly, that's a lot to ask.
>
> Ya but at the same time lots of us do 30-90 minute vids.
>
> >
> >> links,
> >> blogs, vids, books and manuals into a cohesive, updated whole would be
> >> a god send!
> >
> > I think this is not a good idea.
> >
> > Two examples:
> > * deadlinks are a nigthmare to maintain
>
> Yes, but they are all OK on Wikipedia and could be here too with the
> right set up.
>
> > * you can't paste a book or a blog page in the wiki without permission
>
> Clearly a push not pull situation. I think authors and bloggers would
> be happy to try and keep a link page up to date if they knew it was
> there and the users knew it was the  first place to stop when looking
> for something. Blender.org should be the first or second place (behind
> Google) that users go for their info. As it stands, it is about the
> last place I go but it used to be the first.
>
> On the other hand we already have the books. Did you know that? I know
> it took me a long time to find them when I knew they were there! These
> are some great sources of info! They SHOULD be very easy to find with
> Google but they are not.
>
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.5/Books
> http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.4/Books
>
>
>
> > IMHO The wiki should not phagocytize the whole web, but rather be a good
> > reference with its own identity and direction.
> I think we should keep in mind that we have a manual and it should be
> THE source of good info and then we have a wiki. (I know the two
> overlap)
>
> > We should not trash
> > everything in, but rather make a good team work, and refine
> > communication channels: devs -> wiki admins -> writers team -> users,
> > also formalizing this in the BCon, so that documentation is not an
> > boring optional, but part of the job of the developer.
>
> I have long thought that documentors should be recognized for what
> they do just as devs are. I truly can't say a dev is more important
> than a doccer in a mature program like blender. The program lives and
> dies based on both sides of the work.
>
> > Surely with insights from devs the doc will become much more appealing
> > also to professional users and companies :)
> >
> The biggest problem that I see with blender is the new user coming to
> blender and that leaving because they are so over loaded and can't
> find good help or docs. God knows we have a great program but without
> good intros newbies will leave. I got over this hump because of
> graybeards vids on the gui.
>
> I can't wait to do my first ship sailing on the open seas with cycles
> rendering of the animation! And think of the blood effects you could
> do with dynamic paint! On the other hand what do I use for water?
> There are now like 6 ways to do it! LOL. I can just see dynamic paint
> particles impacting the top of my sea and spreading out in ripples
> with my old time ship reflecting in the water! I would love to know
> how you do grass in Cycles! :-)
>
> > Regards,
> > Luca
>

True. I have told friends about Blender, and many gave up after a day or
two because of frustration from above reasons.


>
>
>
>
> --
> Douglas E Knapp
>
> Creative Commons Film Group, Helping people make open source movies
> with open source software!
> http://douglas.bespin.org/CommonsFilmGroup/phpBB3/index.php
>
> Massage in Gelsenkirchen-Buer:
> http://douglas.bespin.org/tcm/ztab1.htm
> Please link to me and trade links with me!
>
> Open Source Sci-Fi mmoRPG Game project.
> http://sf-journey-creations.wikispot.org/Front_Page
> http://code.google.com/p/perspectiveproject/
> _______________________________________________
> Bf-committers mailing list
> Bf-committers at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers
>