James Gilmore wrote: > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:18:25 +1100 > > From: Roger <hovergo at net-tech.com.au <mailto:hovergo at net-tech.com.au>> > > Subject: [Scribus] Scribus Manual > > To: scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de <mailto:scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de> > > Message-ID: <47264E21.4000007 at net-tech.com.au > <mailto:47264E21.4000007 at net-tech.com.au>> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > Hi all > > Thanks for the Introductory page, it has great merit. > > > > At risk of starting another discussion thread, may I suggest that a > focus for > > our Manual be more on the screen shots with text explanation kept to > a minimum. > > A lot of wordage, I find, detracts from the help that a Manual can > provide and > > may generally be understood differently by a variety of readers > whereas images > > are universal, for instance, a workshop manual for assembly of a car > engine, few > > words but great work flow images. > > > > I think that most coming to Scribus already have some experience > with computers > > and have experienced disastrous layout problems associated with > msword so they > > will be looking for similar (familiar) icons and associated > explanations on the > > Scribus Desktop. > > Don't just assume that people wanting to use scribus have relevant > experience, or it will end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy--no one > but the most tech-savvy will give it a thought. I suspect the lack of > a definitive manual has been the single greatest obstacle for the vast > majority of potential users. They may chalk it up to this or that, but > in the end, they were looking for a tool to do (x), and they couldn't > tell if Scribus could do (x) or not, and didn't know how to find out. > That's just my suspicion, though. I could be off base on that. Plus, > tech-savvy is relative. Some people know how to use a computer fairly > well, but I still wouldn't consider "tech savvy;" others I'd say their > fingers should never sit on a keyboard. There's hope for the first > group ;) > > Balance is the key, when it comes to illustrations. I'm digging though > my bookshelf full of technical books, and the balance seems to be 2/3 > text and 1/3 illustrations. Now, that's even for graphic programs like > Maya. The books that lean toward 1/2 text are the ones I generally > consider to have been a waste of money. The ones that lean toward 3/4 > text I generally consider arcane and use more for reference. So that > should be the target: 2/3 text, 1/3 illustration. To be more precise, > shoot for the golden ratio > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio>. When it comes to nearly > anything in design, it revolves around that ratio. My experience with manuals is that the best ones serve both an introductory role, yet also a quick-reference when all you really need is a reminder about how something is done. There are a variety of ways of accomplishing this, but one advantage of Andreas's suggested layout with a wide lateral margin, is that the margin can be used for a succinct summary of what's on the page, or hints, or any number of easily understood clues.
Greg
