[Bf-docboard] Documentation status and upgrade proposal
koil .
dd4567 at hotmail.co.uk
Wed May 7 12:08:29 CEST 2014
Hi.
I like the new webpage.
Some questions and feedback.
I like the way the TOC auto minimizes the other categories.
One thing I like about the wiki.blender pages, is the header navigation on the right side.
Heres a picture: http://www.pasteall.org/pic/70888
Small monitors dont always show it by default.
Its useful to navigate big pages quickly.
http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/html/compositing/composite_editor.html#node-editor-window-actions
http://wiki.blender.org/index.php/Doc:2.6/Manual/Composite_Nodes/Editor#Node_Editor_Window_Actions
On this page it looks like a list of editing commands, without the shortcuts.
So I guess the shortcuts are not implemented yet.
The webpage looks good to me. Im still comparing some pages.
Koilz.
________________________________
> Date: Tue, 6 May 2014 11:41:36 +0200
> From: francesco.siddi at gmail.com
> To: bf-docboard at blender.org
> Subject: [Bf-docboard] Documentation status and upgrade proposal
>
> Hello everybody,
>
> after some conversations about how to improve Blender's documentation
> system, we have worked out a proposal to migrate the Blender User
> Manual to Sphinx (the same documentation system currently used for
> Blender's API).
>
> Blender’s Wiki manual is not evenly maintained, while a new technology
> doesn’t solve the problem of writing a manual, it may help us to better
> maintain an important document.
>
> Wikis are really good for having many interlinking pages (like
> Wikipedia), but less will suited for managing a structured document
>
> Pros:
> - Documentation can be edited and updated locally (no need to edit
> online as with a wiki).
> - Documentation can be output to various formats, HTML, PDF & EPUB.
> - Documentation can be downloaded locally by users or even included
> with Blender releases.
> - The manual can be versioned (currently the Wiki has problems with
> documentation for different Blender versions).
> - The manual organization can be managed more easily in terms of the
> overall structure.
> - RestructuredText can be parsed by Python for creating better tools to
> automatically manage/validate docs.
>
> Cons:
> - Some people may prefer MediaWiki since its well known.
> - No integrated online editing capability.
>
> Managing images via GIT is one if a weaknesses in the proposal, so we
> will keep open the option to store them outside of GIT (use SVN as we
> do for Blender libs), or create new git repos for major Blender version
> changes to avoid the burden of binary files becoming too much over
> time.
>
> You can find more details about this proposal here
> [http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/html/readme.html], and you
> can see a working prototype with Cycles documentation
> [http://www.graphicall.org/ftp/ideasman42/html/cycles_rendering/index.html].
>
> Some maintenance is planned on the existing MediaWiki system as well.
> In particular we would like to:
> - Update or replace the current Naiad theme (not working well on mobile)
> - Attempt to fix the NavTree (always broken due to caching)
> - Update the MediaWiki software
>
> If the user documentation proposal is successful, wiki.blender.org,
> will keep hosting all development documents and material that does not
> fit the user manual.
>
> Feedback on this proposal is very much appreciated at this point.
>
> Thanks,
> Campbell Barton and Francesco Siddi
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Bf-docboard mailing
> list Bf-docboard at blender.org
> http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-docboard
More information about the Bf-docboard
mailing list