On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Knapp <magick.c...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 3:52 PM, mindrones <mindro...@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@blender.org > http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers > _______________________________________________ Bf-committers mailing list Bf-committers@blender.org http://lists.blender.org/mailman/listinfo/bf-committers