RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

Hi Marielle,

That particular site does indeed allow both style sheet control and an
easy download of all the page material in one shot.

However, the package for allowing one to have one's own domain name
costs $50 per month!

So, if we want out own domain name - that would not be the site.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

I have no problem using whatever standards we agree upon. I am not sure
I possess the html skills to do that - but whatever, I can learn.

I chose that particular wiki site because it appears to be unlimited and
free (which always makes me nervous). It is a site that allows for easy
editing of each page, and easy creation of new pages. I am not committed
to using that particular site, I just wanted to get a sense of how much
work would be involved. It would be a decent amount of work, but nothing
insurmountable. I can take a few minutes during lunch today to see if
the files on that site would be portable to another site if need be.

So far, I have only put in a small part of the dictionary (about halfway
through the Cs), and that is without any internal links.

I really believe that getting people to use it would not be too
difficult. It would become a natural process - one that extends from
discussions on this list. Think about the process of finding bugs -
first we discuss them on here, then when a bug is fully identified one
of us puts it on bugzilla. This would be the same - first we discuss how
to use a given command (which happens constantly on this list) then one
of us adds the explanation to the appropriate wiki page. I think the
others on the list will use it when they realize it is easy, and that it
saves them time. It saves them time because in the future they can refer
to a specific page on the wiki site for a given explanation, rather than
constantly re-explaining the issue each time it is raised anew on this
list.

If I keep going with that or a similar site, I would envision three
steps:

1) put in the dictionary and how-to docs
2) go back and add internal links
3) look through the archives of this list and add in any explanations
that seem appropriate for each command

After that, we can add in other sections, like for links to the various
rev pages, or whatever else we want.

Take care,

Jonathan


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marielle
Lange
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 7:56 PM
To: use Revolution How to
Subject: RE: docWikis

Jonathan,

Congrats for your website. Nice addition to the family. Feel free to  
step on my toes... you are welcome to dance on them if you fancy :-).

You insisted that you did it to check out how difficult it would be.  
Point taken.

But the point made by Tim is an important one. You will have user  
contribution when you successfully persuade them that the work they  
put into this will not be wasted. In fact, I didn't make any attempt  
to upload the doc on my own wiki because I was aware that structure  
had to precede content. I didn't take too much time transferring the  
many notes and snippets I have on my computer onto the wiki for this  
very reason too.

Your document is completely unstructured (I understand this is the  
source of the doc itself):
altID property (any object)
Platform support: 
Introduced in version 1.0
Specifies an alternate ID for objects.
set the altID of object to IDNumber
put the altID of this card into myID
repeat while the altID of stack myStack <> 0
See also: ID property 

Can you control the css behind your wiki pages?

This suggests you do:
 
 http://www.seedwiki.com/otherpages/seedwiki/wiki_print.css";>

But can you add new tags within your wiki page that match css  
divisions? This is what I wanted to do in my wiki before trying to  
get more persons contribute. With divisions and conventions, the  
material can be very easily exchanged.


So what about the idea of standards... Only got two respondents so  
far and one is myself.
Would users of this list conform to standards if I have the  
initiative to design some?  If you want to get a poor soul (me) spend  
a few days on this, you should consider taking 1 minute to answer the  
very short survey at:
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-take_survey.php?surveyId=1

By experience, I know that many persons like to answer... do the job,  
spend much much time on it... then when you have finished, if I am  
satisfied with the work you have done, I may end up using it  
Comments, feedback? No, too early. I will wait for you to present me  
with a finished product and then I may give you some feedback if I  
find the time for it.

So many great things haven't been realized because of this  
attitude ;-). If you believe we should go for a reliable revdoc  
system... one that can easily be moved from one place to another  
without too much cost if we discover that the first environment we  
try has intrinsic limits or if we want to take advantage of  
unexpected changes in technology... help make it happen. At the very  
minimum, indicate whether you will be really to adopt the standards  
if they are put in place. I am ready to spend my energy designing  
good standards. I am not much ready to spend a lot of it harassing  
members of this list to start using them

RE: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

Jonathan,

Congrats for your website. Nice addition to the family. Feel free to  
step on my toes... you are welcome to dance on them if you fancy :-).


You insisted that you did it to check out how difficult it would be.  
Point taken.


But the point made by Tim is an important one. You will have user  
contribution when you successfully persuade them that the work they  
put into this will not be wasted. In fact, I didn't make any attempt  
to upload the doc on my own wiki because I was aware that structure  
had to precede content. I didn't take too much time transferring the  
many notes and snippets I have on my computer onto the wiki for this  
very reason too.


Your document is completely unstructured (I understand this is the  
source of the doc itself):
altID property (any object)P>

Platform support: 
Introduced in version 1.0
Specifies an alternate ID for objects.
set the altID of object to IDNumberFONT>

put the altID of this card into myID
repeat while the altID of stack myStack <> 0color=#606060 size=2>
See also: ID property color=#606060 size=2>


Can you control the css behind your wiki pages?

This suggests you do:

HREF="http://www.seedwiki.com/otherpages/seedwiki/wiki_print.css";>


But can you add new tags within your wiki page that match css  
divisions? This is what I wanted to do in my wiki before trying to  
get more persons contribute. With divisions and conventions, the  
material can be very easily exchanged.



So what about the idea of standards... Only got two respondents so  
far and one is myself.
Would users of this list conform to standards if I have the  
initiative to design some?  If you want to get a poor soul (me) spend  
a few days on this, you should consider taking 1 minute to answer the  
very short survey at:

http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-take_survey.php?surveyId=1

By experience, I know that many persons like to answer... do the job,  
spend much much time on it... then when you have finished, if I am  
satisfied with the work you have done, I may end up using it  
Comments, feedback? No, too early. I will wait for you to present me  
with a finished product and then I may give you some feedback if I  
find the time for it.


So many great things haven't been realized because of this  
attitude ;-). If you believe we should go for a reliable revdoc  
system... one that can easily be moved from one place to another  
without too much cost if we discover that the first environment we  
try has intrinsic limits or if we want to take advantage of  
unexpected changes in technology... help make it happen. At the very  
minimum, indicate whether you will be really to adopt the standards  
if they are put in place. I am ready to spend my energy designing  
good standards. I am not much ready to spend a lot of it harassing  
members of this list to start using them. The spider guy moto is that  
with great power comes great responsibilities I believe the  
opposite is also true: with responsibilities come power. We can wait  
for revolution to present us with a frequently updated documentation  
system (which honestly, will never happen), or we can have it done  
ourselves, thanks to the addition of small contributions from all  
members. But for this, we need a momemtum. One or two activists will  
not be enough to make it work.


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage
http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/

Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org
Supporting Education Technologists  http:// 
revolution.lexicall.org



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Dennis Brown]

I would be most interested in seeing all the docs AND the tips and  
examples in one place.  However, it would not be that bad to have two  
sites if they have pointers to entries in each other.  However, it  
seems like keeping the pointers from breaking might be a concern.


The best solution as everyone knows would be for RunRev to sponsor a  
full Wiki site for all of this.  I am frankly at a loss as to why  
they have not jumped on this long ago --just silence.  In the absence  
of their leadership, I will give my support to whichever site is  
mutually agreed upon.


Dennis

On Oct 25, 2005, at 5:58 PM, Lynch, Jonathan wrote:


So then, there is no actual online wiki containing the full revdocs...

I happen to agree with you (Marielle) that it would be an excellent
thing. I am willing to set it up if no one else wishes to do it.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marielle
Lange
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:39 PM
To: use Revolution How to
Subject: Re: docWikis

Hi Jonathan



What is your site for the revdoc wiki again?



My site is not for revdoc... it contains snippets and code examples.
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=StandardsSMIL
(for the page on SMIL standards, to be in context... though this page
is quite empty for now)



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

So then, there is no actual online wiki containing the full revdocs...

I happen to agree with you (Marielle) that it would be an excellent
thing. I am willing to set it up if no one else wishes to do it.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Marielle
Lange
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 5:39 PM
To: use Revolution How to
Subject: Re: docWikis

Hi Jonathan

> What is your site for the revdoc wiki again?

My site is not for revdoc... it contains snippets and code examples.
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=StandardsSMIL
(for the page on SMIL standards, to be in context... though this page  
is quite empty for now)

> Does it have the whole revDocs on it?

Nope, you will find it elsewhere.
They have been there : http://mathfieldday.com:8080/revdocs/2291   
(not serving anymore)

You will also find them in this excellent course:
http://revolution.byu.edu/cgi-bin/revsite/indexcounter.cgi
http://revolution.byu.edu/revdocs212.html

Cheers,
Marielle



Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage
http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/
Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org
Supporting Education Technologists  http:// 
revolution.lexicall.org


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Mark Swindell]

Could an expert scripter create a template rev stack  that would wikify 
all the existing revdocs in one fell swoop and send them to  their 
appropriate places in the wiki/web structure (however that works for 
wikis, no idea here).   Just a question.  I'm sure it's not easy or 
someone would have done it.


Mark

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

Hi Jonathan


What is your site for the revdoc wiki again?


My site is not for revdoc... it contains snippets and code examples.
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=StandardsSMIL
(for the page on SMIL standards, to be in context... though this page  
is quite empty for now)



Does it have the whole revDocs on it?


Nope, you will find it elsewhere.
They have been there : http://mathfieldday.com:8080/revdocs/2291   
(not serving anymore)


You will also find them in this excellent course:
http://revolution.byu.edu/cgi-bin/revsite/indexcounter.cgi
http://revolution.byu.edu/revdocs212.html

Cheers,
Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage
http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/

Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org
Supporting Education Technologists  http:// 
revolution.lexicall.org



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Timothy Miller]

Timothy Miller wrote:
I think your best strategy would be to convince potential 
participants that their contributions will get recycled into other 
revDocWikis if yours does not grow and thrive. Accordingly, no 
contribution will ever be wasted.


I'm coming in late, so forgive me is this has already been answered:

Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?


Derr Never noticed this feature. No one on this thread, which has 
trickled on and off for months, has mentioned it. Didn't know it 
exists. Waitaminnit...


Okay, I have noticed the "edit web notes" icon, but never knew what 
it does. If it's ever mentioned on the list, I've overlooked it. I 
see the "download and show web notes" checkbox. I checked it and 
tried a few things in the docs stacks, but nothing different 
happened. I searched the documentation for "web notes" but didn't 
find anything.


What the heck are web notes, and how do they work?

Cheers,


Tim
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

For an example of how a note added to a doc could be useful, please look
at this page:

http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/runtime_revolution_docs/altid_property.cfm?
wpid=213569

apologies if the link is broken, you might have to cut and paste the
whole link into your browser for it to work.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lynch,
Jonathan
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 11:09 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: RE: docWikis

I really like the wiki idea...

Webnotes seems great on the surface... But having the docs in a wiki
means we get to modify whatever we want. We can add comments after the
initial document. We can link to examples, related webpages, and the
like. We can even fix the original documents if absolutely necessary. We
can post examples of how to use a command, or how to combine commands.
We can also add in new pages to the docs that really should be there...

Like how to use the tab panel button, how to use tables, the quirks of
nested groups (I can write this one), and many other examples...

And we can make it such that any contributions are automatically public
domain, meaning RunRev would be free to take any contributions to add or
modify the original documents as needed. And, of course, the contributor
gets to put in a link or two to his or her homepage, in case that might
lead to new business for them.

In fact...

I copied a few pages from the docs into a practice wiki, just to see if
it would be practical and to experiment with:

http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/runtime_revolution_docs/runtime_revolution_
docs.cfm


I think it would not be too difficult to set up, and would be worth the
effort. However, I don't want to step on anyone else's toes who has
already started on such a thing (like Marielle) - I just did it as a
test of practicality.

It would become a habit for us... When someone posts a good script, like
Chipp's windows document launching script, then the others respond by
saying...
"Hey, great script, please add it to the wiki..."

Or when someone explains how to use certain commands...

"Awesome advice, please note that in the docwiki..."


It would be similar to the way we currently tell folks to use bugzilla
when they find a bug.

And when a newbie asks a frequently asked question, we can respond by
saying... "Oh no problem, please just check out the docwiki at
so-and-so"

I see it as something that would increase efficiency across the board...
Better for RunRev, and better for all of us.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex
Tweedly
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:44 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: docWikis

Lynch, Jonathan wrote:

>I just checked the webnotes for allowFieldRedraw, and they said
"hkhfkj"
>
>Maybe the webnotes system isn't working yet?
>
>  
>
More likely is that I'm just not good at exploiting apparent weaknesses
:-)

Maybe the Web Notes special case the situation where the uploaded note 
is empty.

Maybe uploaded notes only get refreshed daily.


or 

Maybe this is why a Wiki *might* work while Web Notes (based on the last

9 months experience or so since they were introduced) demonstrably don't

work.


-- 
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/148 - Release Date:
25/10/2005

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[David Bovill]

On 25 Oct 2005, at 03:26, Troy Rollins wrote:


On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:16 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:



Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?


I was wondering the same... wouldn't it be best to put them right  
where people are already looking?


Sure - but they are "user docs" no - not shared / collaborative.  
Admit that I have never used it because of this assumption :)

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Mark Wieder]

Alex-

Tuesday, October 25, 2005, 7:44:04 AM, you wrote:

> Maybe this is why a Wiki *might* work while Web Notes (based on the last
> 9 months experience or so since they were introduced) demonstrably don't
> work.

I notice that the Web Notes I have uploaded have just disappeared into
the void. I don't know whether they were vetted and rejected, whether
they never made it to the destination, whether they were overwritten
by someone else, whether I should resubmit them, etc. I've got notes
scribbled in my hardcopy of the docs and there they remain, for my
eyes only.

It's really not worth my while trying to type these things in anymore.
If this is an attempt at a wiki sort of approach it's a failure. If
it's trying to implement a Bugzilla enhancement request feature, it
also isn't accomplishing that. What Web Notes are and how they work
has never been documented. Maybe you have to type "hkhfkj" in order
for them to stick?

-- 
-Mark Wieder
 [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

I really like the wiki idea...

Webnotes seems great on the surface... But having the docs in a wiki
means we get to modify whatever we want. We can add comments after the
initial document. We can link to examples, related webpages, and the
like. We can even fix the original documents if absolutely necessary. We
can post examples of how to use a command, or how to combine commands.
We can also add in new pages to the docs that really should be there...

Like how to use the tab panel button, how to use tables, the quirks of
nested groups (I can write this one), and many other examples...

And we can make it such that any contributions are automatically public
domain, meaning RunRev would be free to take any contributions to add or
modify the original documents as needed. And, of course, the contributor
gets to put in a link or two to his or her homepage, in case that might
lead to new business for them.

In fact...

I copied a few pages from the docs into a practice wiki, just to see if
it would be practical and to experiment with:

http://www.seedwiki.com/wiki/runtime_revolution_docs/runtime_revolution_
docs.cfm


I think it would not be too difficult to set up, and would be worth the
effort. However, I don't want to step on anyone else's toes who has
already started on such a thing (like Marielle) - I just did it as a
test of practicality.

It would become a habit for us... When someone posts a good script, like
Chipp's windows document launching script, then the others respond by
saying...
"Hey, great script, please add it to the wiki..."

Or when someone explains how to use certain commands...

"Awesome advice, please note that in the docwiki..."


It would be similar to the way we currently tell folks to use bugzilla
when they find a bug.

And when a newbie asks a frequently asked question, we can respond by
saying... "Oh no problem, please just check out the docwiki at
so-and-so"

I see it as something that would increase efficiency across the board...
Better for RunRev, and better for all of us.


-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex
Tweedly
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 10:44 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: docWikis

Lynch, Jonathan wrote:

>I just checked the webnotes for allowFieldRedraw, and they said
"hkhfkj"
>
>Maybe the webnotes system isn't working yet?
>
>  
>
More likely is that I'm just not good at exploiting apparent weaknesses
:-)

Maybe the Web Notes special case the situation where the uploaded note 
is empty.

Maybe uploaded notes only get refreshed daily.


or 

Maybe this is why a Wiki *might* work while Web Notes (based on the last

9 months experience or so since they were introduced) demonstrably don't

work.


-- 
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/148 - Release Date:
25/10/2005

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Alex Tweedly]

Lynch, Jonathan wrote:


I just checked the webnotes for allowFieldRedraw, and they said "hkhfkj"

Maybe the webnotes system isn't working yet?

 


More likely is that I'm just not good at exploiting apparent weaknesses :-)

Maybe the Web Notes special case the situation where the uploaded note 
is empty.


Maybe uploaded notes only get refreshed daily.


or 

Maybe this is why a Wiki *might* work while Web Notes (based on the last 
9 months experience or so since they were introduced) demonstrably don't 
work.



--
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/148 - Release Date: 25/10/2005

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

I just checked the webnotes for allowFieldRedraw, and they said "hkhfkj"

Maybe the webnotes system isn't working yet?

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alex
Tweedly
Sent: Tuesday, October 25, 2005 6:38 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: docWikis

Troy Rollins wrote:

>
> On Oct 25, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:
>
>> I seem to remember a bug in it where it would only save the last 
>> comments?
>
>
> Well, that would put a damper on things. Would be nice to see that 
> fixed, because it is probably the best way to have a system with 
> longevity that both RR and the user base could contribute to - as 
> obviously intended.

That needs to be fixed - and it also needs someone from RunRev to 
monitor the Notes and edit where necessary.

e.g. the Web Notes for allowFieldRedraw said   "hhgfk"
[  Until I exploited the above mentioned bug to remove it :-)   ]


But I don't see that as the sole answer; Web Notes should fix or clarify

the existing docs. Extended examples or discussion (e.g. PCRE versus 
Perl RegEx) should go in a wiki (or somewhere) rather than in the docs.

-- 
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/148 - Release Date:
25/10/2005

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

I think your best strategy would be to convince potential  
participants that their contributions will get recycled into other  
revDocWikis if yours does not grow and thrive. Accordingly, no  
contribution will ever be wasted.




I'm coming in late, so forgive me is this has already been answered:
Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?


(1) not all members of this list have broadband
(2) is it a personal note or a shared note?
(3) what do they do with the comments? back to the same issue... Am I  
doing anything useful or wasting my time when editing comments.

(4) There is also the issue that comments are completely unstructured
(5) Can comments be reedited (improved upon) by other members?
(5) There is then the issue that with comments there is no space for  
adding information at widget level (a widget is defined as a group of  
controls achieving a specific action together... the excellent jigsaw  
puzzle contributed by Alex is a good example of this).


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage
http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/

Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org
Supporting Education Technologists  http:// 
revolution.lexicall.org



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

Hi Tim,

I found your comments really excellent. Thanks for them.

So the first thing we should be doing is to create standards for the  
representation of code and snippets to guarantee interoperability,  
ease of update, and exchange. I proposed Hugh (the author of the  
scripter's scrapbook ) to go in that direction, he was interested,  
asked for more info then I got busy and didn't follow up.


Okay, this is a group we can easily create completely open as it is  
in the very best interest of all list members (perhaps not Hugh though).


Of course that would require standardized formats, or at least  
easily convertible formats. I don't know enough about wikis to  
understand the practicality.


The thing is that once you have information stored in a standard  
format, it is very easy to translate it from one environment to  
another.  In fact, if the list members were keen enough to take the 1  
minute required to format their reply in standard format, something  
like:






... it is possible to consider the automatic parsing of the  
contributions on the rev list. Again, cost to produce the standards.  
Once they are produced, maximum group benefit at minimal individual  
cost.


I will be away for a month (starting this Friday). I will take some  
notes before I go away (i.e., today).
But the time I am ready to spend on this is of course strongly  
influenced by the impact I can expect for my efforts (I like to  
contribute but not to waste my time). So can I ask members of this  
list to take the time to answer these three questions.


Where should we discuss the development of standards for rev code for  
maximum participation:
(a) somewhere neutral (yahoo group), (b) please not a yahoo group,  
(c) no preference.


I would like to help with the design of standards for rev code
(a) yes, (b) no, (c) not skilled enough

If standards are defined, then I am ready to use them in all emails I  
post to the rev mailing list, so they can be automatically parsed

(a) yes, (b) no, (c) don't understand

PLEASE, ***don't do it on this list (enough traffic already).   
For each one of these questions, You can tick a box at:

http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-take_survey.php?surveyId=1
This is completely anonymous and you don't need to be a registered  
user of the wiki to answer.


Many thanks!
Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage
http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/

Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org
Supporting Education Technologists  http:// 
revolution.lexicall.org



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Alex Tweedly]

Troy Rollins wrote:



On Oct 25, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

I seem to remember a bug in it where it would only save the last 
comments?



Well, that would put a damper on things. Would be nice to see that 
fixed, because it is probably the best way to have a system with 
longevity that both RR and the user base could contribute to – as 
obviously intended.


That needs to be fixed - and it also needs someone from RunRev to 
monitor the Notes and edit where necessary.


e.g. the Web Notes for allowFieldRedraw said   "hhgfk"
[  Until I exploited the above mentioned bug to remove it :-)   ]


But I don't see that as the sole answer; Web Notes should fix or clarify 
the existing docs. Extended examples or discussion (e.g. PCRE versus 
Perl RegEx) should go in a wiki (or somewhere) rather than in the docs.


--
Alex Tweedly   http://www.tweedly.net



--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.5/148 - Release Date: 25/10/2005

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Richard Gaskin]

Chipp Walters wrote:

 Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?
>>>
>> I was wondering the same... wouldn't it be best to put them
>> right where people are already looking?
>
> I seem to remember a bug in it where it would only save the
> last comments?

Could be, but it seems simpler to fix a small bug than build an entirely 
separate system.


--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Troy Rollins]

On Oct 25, 2005, at 1:37 AM, Chipp Walters wrote:

I seem to remember a bug in it where it would only save the last 
comments?


Well, that would put a damper on things. Would be nice to see that 
fixed, because it is probably the best way to have a system with 
longevity that both RR and the user base could contribute to – as 
obviously intended.

--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Chipp Walters]

I seem to remember a bug in it where it would only save the last comments?

-Chipp



Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?


I was wondering the same... wouldn't it be best to put them right where
people are already looking?


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Judy Perry]

I suppose the obvious answer is that some of us are extremely dumb and not
looking...  'cuz we're not knowing  (agnostic??)

@;-)

Okay, so I only speak for myself... and my other self... and any other
voices hanging about...

Judy

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005, Troy Rollins wrote:

>
> On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:16 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:
>
> > Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?
>
> I was wondering the same... wouldn't it be best to put them right where
> people are already looking?

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Dennis Brown]

Marielle,

What I would look for (in addition to Timothy's reply) is an easy way  
to navigate to information based on general to specific structure.   
Sort of like discovering what you want by 20 questions game.   
Searching for information requires that you know what to call  
something.  However, a newbie does not know what to call something in  
revspeak yet.  A newbie has a problem to solve, and wants to find  
ideas for how to solve the problem in Transcript.  This list is very  
good for getting that information from the experts for the asking,  
but not so easy to find the previously posted solutions without a lot  
of reading.  I would like to see the information organized by general  
topic to specific topic in a hierarchy where many different starting  
paths can still lead to the same information. This is not like flat  
structures (like a table of contents) or simple hierarchies (like an  
outliner) or random hypertext links.  These all take a lot of time  
and reading to find the solutions to problems.  I am just starting to  
use wikis, so I don't even know if the wiki form could support such a  
linking scheme.


Having the docs and examples organized this way would get me coming  
back to such a site as my first choice for information, and I would  
desire to contribute to it.  I am sure it would be quite compelling  
for newbies and experienced scripters alike.


Dennis

On Oct 24, 2005, at 4:13 PM, Marielle Lange wrote:
I am very curious... What would be needed to get more of you  
register and contribute? Tell me and I do it :).

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Troy Rollins]

On Oct 24, 2005, at 9:16 PM, Richard Gaskin wrote:


Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?


I was wondering the same... wouldn't it be best to put them right where 
people are already looking?


--
Troy
RPSystems, Ltd.
http://www.rpsystems.net

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Richard Gaskin]

Timothy Miller wrote:
I think your best strategy would be to convince potential participants 
that their contributions will get recycled into other revDocWikis if 
yours does not grow and thrive. Accordingly, no contribution will ever 
be wasted.


I'm coming in late, so forgive me is this has already been answered:

Why not use the user comment feature built into the Rev docs?

--
 Richard Gaskin
 Managing Editor, revJournal
 ___
 Rev tips, tutorials and more: http://www.revJournal.com
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Timothy Miller]

Hi Marielle,

I appreciate all your thoughtful comments. I am completely sympathetic.

--very big snip--

You asked:



I am very curious... What would be needed to get more of you 
register and contribute?



My reply is sort of selfish, I fear. It would take -- uhhh -- 
"critical mass" or "momentum." I.e., the belief that this document, 
this community, this wiki, will grow and thrive, at an accelerating 
rate -- it will be around for a long time, and get better and better. 
If -- hypothetically -- I don't believe this, then I will feel that 
my contributions will likely be futile.


I'd guess that this would be a typical answer, if you asked others.

It seems unfair to you, because there's only so much you can to do 
make that happen.


It's not just unfair, or a dilemma, or a paradox. It's really an 
issue that often arises in game theory. The behavior of each 
potential participant depends upon the behavior of every other 
potential participant.


I think your best strategy would be to convince potential 
participants that their contributions will get recycled into other 
revDocWikis if yours does not grow and thrive. Accordingly, no 
contribution will ever be wasted.


You could take that even further. Make deals with owners of other 
revDocWikis: Anything submitted to yours will be forwarded to all the 
others, and posted there, and all submitted to the others will get 
forwarded to yours. That way, any potential contributor to any wiki, 
no matter how small or obscure, will have good reason to believe that 
his/her contribution will ultimately make a difference. If different 
wikis appeal to different potential contributors, that could actually 
be a good thing, as long as contributions get disseminated.


Of course that would require standardized formats, or at least easily 
convertible formats. I don't know enough about wikis to understand 
the practicality.


That's my .0002 cents worth, anyway. Thanks for asking.


Tim
___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

Hi Tim,

I am certainly sympathetic to your goals and philosophical  
position. Rev users generally seem sympathetic to the manufacturer  
-- wish it well, want it to succeed. Me too.


It's their product I want to live long and prosper, really ;). If the  
cheap option, dreamcard, could be acquired by a company or a  
government which would make it available open source, this would be  
fantastic!


My initial reaction -- what's there is admirable. The documentation  
you have written is somewhat clearer and less terse than Rev's  
native documentation, with more examples.


Thanks. But I don't deserve the credits. Much of it is just cut and  
paste from this list... with possibly a few rewrites. There is  
***extraordinary** material posted on this list (if you have time to  
read all posts, past and present, which is not really to be expected  
from a recent user). We could gain so much if we were reusing it more  
than we presently do.


Of course the number of items and issues documented is relatively  
small. I didn't spend a lot of time exploring -- I might have  
overlooked something. I'm sorry you're disappointed with the  
overall reaction so far.


Beyond that, I wonder if initial visitors will be daunted by the  
task of re-writing Rev's native documentation and moving it to your  
wiki, while simultaneously improving and supplementing the native  
documentation. If Rev's native documentation can't be moved  
wholesale to a wiki, with its hyperlinks, "see also" links, and so  
on, intact, for the sake of wiki-type improving and supplementing,  
I fear too many potential wiki users will be too daunted, and it  
just won't catch on.


I hope I'm wrong, though.


You are probably right... if the ultimate goal is a good  
documentation, efforts should be centralized rather than dispersed. I  
am interested in giving a hand to produce a good documentation more  
than in hosting a few pages on snippets. But for the moment, there is  
room for individual efforts... I didn't really feel a real  
"community" momentum for "improving and supplementing the native  
documentation". This surprises me. My understanding is that all the  
current doc has in fact been produced collaboratively, in a wiki. At  
least, I came across a wiki that contained this documentation,  
written in 2001-2002. I cannot find its url anymore.


But centralized organisation doesn't mean unique resource. Members of  
this list have very different skill level and learning style. Some  
like textual explanations. Others prefer to be presented with  
examples of code alone.


I am ready to translate all xml documents into a wiki format if this  
can help (wouldn't take more than a day, I have already written  
various html2wiki conversion routines).



I visited your site, and bookmarked it.


Good, you will join the 44 visitors a day (yes, about 1300 a month,  
not hits, not robots, individual visitors... not too bad).


And I got two new users and a new contribution to the snippets.  
Thanks a lot Mark for your contribution!


I am very curious... What would be needed to get more of you register  
and contribute? Tell me and I do it :). Seriously! I know that taking  
part in an open wiki requires a culture shift. Our generation hasn't  
really learned to work collaboratively What do you believe would  
help get persons participate in a communal initiative? What are the  
factors that encourage or discourage participation? What is your own  
perception of this... Do you feel like exposing yourself when  
participating to a wiki (what if I make a spellling errror, somebody  
will see it?)... this shouldn't be too different from the mailing  
list... in fact, even better if you leave an error, then somebody can  
come and correct it. Or is it this the problem, that somebody can  
come and change what you have written.


Maybe I should start to write errors (there probably are some)...  
maybe persons will then think, this is wrong, I really need to  
intervene... done, ah!, without me, this wiki wouldn't be worth  
visiting.


What is the strongest in most humans, the need to feel that they  
bring a valuable contribution or the need for their own, personal  
contribution, to be valued? What environment needs to be created for  
the former rather than the later to become more important?


Marielle

 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage
http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/

Easy access to lexical databaseshttp://lexicall.org
Supporting Education Technologists  http:// 
revolution.lexicall.org



___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:

Re: docWikis

[David Bovill]

On 19 Oct 2005, at 03:04, Timothy Miller wrote:

 If Rev's native documentation can't be moved wholesale to a wiki,  
with its hyperlinks, "see also" links, and so on, intact, for the  
sake of wiki-type improving and supplementing, I fear too many  
potential wiki users will be too daunted, and it just won't catch on.


Think this has already been done - by someone - at some time - no -  
or dreaming again?


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Timothy Miller]

Hi Marielle,

I visited your site, and bookmarked it. I am certainly sympathetic to 
your goals and philosophical position. Rev users generally seem 
sympathetic to the manufacturer -- wish it well, want it to succeed. 
Me too.


My initial reaction -- what's there is admirable. The documentation 
you have written is somewhat clearer and less terse than Rev's native 
documentation, with more examples. Of course the number of items and 
issues documented is relatively small. I didn't spend a lot of time 
exploring -- I might have overlooked something. I'm sorry you're 
disappointed with the overall reaction so far.


Beyond that, I wonder if initial visitors will be daunted by the task 
of re-writing Rev's native documentation and moving it to your wiki, 
while simultaneously improving and supplementing the native 
documentation. If Rev's native documentation can't be moved wholesale 
to a wiki, with its hyperlinks, "see also" links, and so on, intact, 
for the sake of wiki-type improving and supplementing, I fear too 
many potential wiki users will be too daunted, and it just won't 
catch on.


I hope I'm wrong, though.


Tim

Marielle wrote:

Again we are back to the same problem. Revolution Company has 
limited resources. Users on this list seems to be very resourceful. 
Why always direct the complaints against revolution? Why not start 
thinking about what *WE* users can do to improve this. Because we 
paid for a license means we shouldn't do the service? What matters 
most for you, the fact you paid for your license or the quality of 
the service you could get if each one of us gave a hand, as a 
function of his time, dedication, and level of skill?


This page: 
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=RevolutionSnippetTips
has been accessed 215 times. Numbers of persons who have taken the 
time to update it other than me (nothing more than cut and paste 
from a post on the list, 2 minutes of your time a week maximum): 0 
(zero).


I would have more resources at my fingertips if more of *you users 
of this list ranting against the lack of good docs* decided to 
invest a bit more of *your* time in the creation of a good 
documentation.


 The documentation is really excellent... comparing well if not 
better than other documentation systems I have been using (Visual 
Basic or Visual Basic for Applications, for instance). With other 
languages, you can often find a book that make up for unclear 
documentation, but this comes with an extra price tag. To improve 
this documentation, there are two models: Extensive Collaboration 
and a free service... Everybody trying to get more than he gives, 
keeping everything he has developed for him/herself and a paying 
service. Choose the model you want for the years to come in this 
community... but if you choose the second, please spare me the rants 
against the doc. Dreamcard is less than $100 and Macromedia Studio 8 
costs $400. What you get for less than $100 is *extraordinary*.


Marielle


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

Hi David,


I've spent 5 months building a framework in RunRev that avoids a  
lot of the problems and makes it really fast to develop new objects  
and make them reusable.




Possible to know more about this? It seems that many persons on this  
list have done the same.


Again we are back to the same problem. Revolution Company has limited  
resources. Users on this list seems to be very resourceful. Why  
always direct the complaints against revolution? Why not start  
thinking about what *WE* users can do to improve this. Because we  
paid for a license means we shouldn't do the service? What matters  
most for you, the fact you paid for your license or the quality of  
the service you could get if each one of us gave a hand, as a  
function of his time, dedication, and level of skill?


This page: http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php? 
page=RevolutionSnippetTips
has been accessed 215 times. Numbers of persons who have taken the  
time to update it other than me (nothing more than cut and paste from  
a post on the list, 2 minutes of your time a week maximum): 0 (zero).


I would have more resources at my fingertips if more of *you users of  
this list ranting against the lack of good docs* decided to invest a  
bit more of *your* time in the creation of a good documentation.


 The documentation is really excellent... comparing well if not  
better than other documentation systems I have been using (Visual  
Basic or Visual Basic for Applications, for instance). With other  
languages, you can often find a book that make up for unclear  
documentation, but this comes with an extra price tag. To improve  
this documentation, there are two models: Extensive Collaboration and  
a free service... Everybody trying to get more than he gives, keeping  
everything he has developed for him/herself and a paying service.  
Choose the model you want for the years to come in this community...  
but if you choose the second, please spare me the rants against the  
doc. Dreamcard is less than $100 and Macromedia Studio 8 costs $400.  
What you get for less than $100 is *extraordinary*.


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:  http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/
Lexicall: http://lexicall.org
Revolution-education: http://revolution.lexicall.org


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Timothy Miller]

I know whatcha mean, Jim.

OTOH, the newsgroups and help boards and email lists, like this one, 
are never-ending sources of free tech support, given generously. 
(It's called "peer support" though the people who assist me almost 
always know a great deal more than I do. Not peers, really.) You 
assist other users yourself, at least on this list.


Theoretically, if help files were written, accumulated and 
continuously improved in the way I suggested, there would be less 
need for "peer support," not more. In addition, less expert users 
could contribute to continuous improvement, in their own ways, some 
of the time. I just learned a clever way to troubleshoot my modem 
troubles, for example. I asked for help it several places, but no one 
else thought of it. If the right docWiki existed, I'd submit that 
helpful bit of knowledge.


The larger idea of docWikis is really just a possibility that popped 
into my imagination. I'm sure it has occurred to others. My previous 
message on this thread represented a tiny thought capsule into 
virtual space, to see what happened. And a virtual vote in favor of 
the concept.


As a frequent, and frequently-befuddled, computer user, I am 
constantly dependent on various forms of documentation and help 
files, and often frustrated and disappointed by the haphazard mess I 
encounter when I have a technical "issue". There must be many 
millions like me.


Cheers,


Tim


Of course, who decides what qualifies as good/excellent content..  Expert
level, moderate, beginner, one example, two, five, .. fastest algorithm,
easiest to write..  how to put pieces together to solve scenarios.. catalog
the exceptions and bugs.. even to build a rudimentary decision tree for
someone to follow to build an app..

All would be a very large task for several individuals.  Add to the mix that
the most accomplished contributors are advanced because they do this for a
living which means they have no time for their own documentation of
projects, let alone building a knowledge base.

In our little corner of the programming universe, I think that most anyone
only has time to skim, collect some valuable tidbits, contribute answers as
time and mood permit, then go on with our lives.

As they say, "managing programmers is like herding cats", and that is the
way it should be.  I wish you good luck getting support.  If I decided to
follow this path and contribute, my wife would kill me.

Jim Ault
Las Vegas


On 10/17/05 5:09 PM, "Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:


 It suddenly occurs to me that the docWiki issue goes far beyond
 Revolution, though it's possible that Rev could be the first software
 company to take full advantage of the opportunity. As others have
 mentioned, Rev is a great platform for a comprehensive and
 frequently-upgradeable help system.

 For instance...

 The help files on my OS 10.3.9 Macintosh are okay, compared to
 previous incarnations of the Macintosh, and compared to the help
 files on Windows XP, frinstance. Compared to what the Macintosh
 onboard docs *could* be, given lots of generous, loyal, knowledgeable
 users, a very small team of editors, a wiki, and a few tech tricks,
 they are a disgraceful disgrace!

 Why should I have to spend precious minutes--or hours--hunting on the
 Apple support site for a technical bulletin that I hope will explain
 why my modem won't send faxes, and how to make it work? If other
 users have had the same problem, and solved it, one of them would
 donate the needed information to the Macintosh docWiki, in clear
 English, plus maybe a link to the technical bulletin.

 The editors could check it for accuracy, add some "related links"
 index it and cross-reference it, release it to their public docWiki,
 and at the same time, release it to the next generation of indexed,
 cross-referenced help docs, ready for download, or update, or
 whatever. The topics could -- and maybe should -- be searchable in

 > several different ways -- filter, search-for, logic-tree, FAQs by

 topic and subtopic, etc. Maybe boolean, too.

 Such docs could -- and maybe should -- be updated frequently, maybe
 every day, and eligible for automatic updating, should the user
 desire it.

 In the same way, docWiki users could suggest clearer wording on
 topics already in use, novice, intermediate, and expert versions of
 the same topic, terse or verbose versions, and so on. Some topics
 would be specific to one machine model, OS version, or software
 version. Users of one machine, or one software version, ideally,
 could download only the information necessary for the software, the
 machine and the OS they actually use, though public docWikis would
 remain available for other versions, other machines, and so on.

 The examples go on forever. Why should the same weary volunteer
 experts -- on newsgroups and help boards -- answer the same 200 or
 300 questions over and over and over again? For such questions, all
 that is needed would be a link to the right page

RE: docWikis

[Lynch, Jonathan]

You can't convince everyone, but you don't need to.

If you convince a few, that will get the ball rolling.


I would participate in whatever rev doc wiki is most popular. Someone
mentioned there is more than one - are any of them being added to?


And... it does not necessarily require experts to directly contribute.
Non-experts and copy answers from this list over the wiki. Participating
in the wiki will help non-experts become experts as they trod through
the minute details of any given function or command.

-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David
Bovill
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 6:43 AM
To: How to use Revolution
Subject: Re: docWikis

Hmmm... not going to convince you then :)

If you have seen the progress of wikipedia over the last 2 and a bit  
years from unfunded nothing to one of the worlds most valuable  
multilingual encyclopaedias based on idiotically simple technology  
that could have been built in revolution in a month by a single  
developer, and based on the input of hundreds of thousands of  
unherdable cats, plus a few freaks, with nothing but an collectively  
organised skeleton of an editorial process...

Try deleting a page on wikipedia or defacing it and see how long it  
takes to be replaces by all those "cats". Take a look at how many  
tiny contributions and corrections are posted every minute by people  
with "wives that would kill them" - the best sort :) There is an irc  
channel somewhere - which last time i checked was showing around 20  
posts (ie modifications and new contributiuons) every minute.

Paid dedicated centrally controlled editorial is not the only way to  
produce quality - social filtering and structured openess goes a long  
way in defined application areas.


On 18 Oct 2005, at 03:06, Jim Ault wrote:

> Of course, who decides what qualifies as good/excellent content..   
> Expert
> level, moderate, beginner, one example, two, five, .. fastest  
> algorithm,
> easiest to write..  how to put pieces together to solve scenarios..  
> catalog
> the exceptions and bugs.. even to build a rudimentary decision tree  
> for
> someone to follow to build an app..
>
> All would be a very large task for several individuals.  Add to the  
> mix that
> the most accomplished contributors are advanced because they do  
> this for a
> living which means they have no time for their own documentation of
> projects, let alone building a knowledge base.
>
> In our little corner of the programming universe, I think that most  
> anyone
> only has time to skim, collect some valuable tidbits, contribute  
> answers as
> time and mood permit, then go on with our lives.
>
> As they say, "managing programmers is like herding cats", and that  
> is the
> way it should be.  I wish you good luck getting support.  If I  
> decided to
> follow this path and contribute, my wife would kill me.

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your
subscription preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[David Bovill]

Hmmm... not going to convince you then :)

If you have seen the progress of wikipedia over the last 2 and a bit  
years from unfunded nothing to one of the worlds most valuable  
multilingual encyclopaedias based on idiotically simple technology  
that could have been built in revolution in a month by a single  
developer, and based on the input of hundreds of thousands of  
unherdable cats, plus a few freaks, with nothing but an collectively  
organised skeleton of an editorial process...


Try deleting a page on wikipedia or defacing it and see how long it  
takes to be replaces by all those "cats". Take a look at how many  
tiny contributions and corrections are posted every minute by people  
with "wives that would kill them" - the best sort :) There is an irc  
channel somewhere - which last time i checked was showing around 20  
posts (ie modifications and new contributiuons) every minute.


Paid dedicated centrally controlled editorial is not the only way to  
produce quality - social filtering and structured openess goes a long  
way in defined application areas.



On 18 Oct 2005, at 03:06, Jim Ault wrote:

Of course, who decides what qualifies as good/excellent content..   
Expert
level, moderate, beginner, one example, two, five, .. fastest  
algorithm,
easiest to write..  how to put pieces together to solve scenarios..  
catalog
the exceptions and bugs.. even to build a rudimentary decision tree  
for

someone to follow to build an app..

All would be a very large task for several individuals.  Add to the  
mix that
the most accomplished contributors are advanced because they do  
this for a

living which means they have no time for their own documentation of
projects, let alone building a knowledge base.

In our little corner of the programming universe, I think that most  
anyone
only has time to skim, collect some valuable tidbits, contribute  
answers as

time and mood permit, then go on with our lives.

As they say, "managing programmers is like herding cats", and that  
is the
way it should be.  I wish you good luck getting support.  If I  
decided to

follow this path and contribute, my wife would kill me.


___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Dave LeYanna]

As a new Rev. user, I get a LOT from reading this list! But you know 
what, I'm not sure that it's worth my time, at least the way that I am 
doing it now. I need to find a more efficient way to manage this list. 
Transforming this list into a docwiki seems like it has merit.


I ambiguous about the friendly bantering that goes on between members... 
It is very useful in that you can "feel" the personalities coming out to 
play. On the other hand when I'm trying to follow an issue that I'm 
having a problem with at the moment, it gets in the way. How can I have 
it both ways? I want it both ways!


Sometimes, I know I've read the answer to my problem before (in this 
list) but I can't seem to find it. And then sometimes an answer never 
really comes... (Do all Windows users have a CR/LF problem when printing 
scripts or am I alone in this issue?)


Long live the list (until something better comes along.)

Dave

Marielle Lange wrote:

In our little corner of the programming universe, I think that most  
anyone
only has time to skim, collect some valuable tidbits, contribute  
answers as

time and mood permit, then go on with our lives.
If I decided to follow this path and contribute, my wife would kill  me.



That's a very important point.  I tried with similar projects in  
education. Everybody is interested in having things made available  
for free. Nobody is much interested (1) in taking  
*responsibilities*... that is you are the one eventually working all  
night to put everything back together in case a hacker decided to put  
your site to the test and  (2) in helping to fund the development of  
"open" content or "open" source that would *immensely* benefit the  
community in the longer term. So at the end, if you have been crazy  
enough to start doing it, you end up being the one doing 90% of the  
job that needs to be done, and on your hobby time.


Materials is easy to contribute. A clever and reliable  
infrastructure, responsibly managed and maintainted, to host that  
material often comes with a price tag (at least  months full time).


For instance, I can afford to have my websites because maintenance is  
made easy... thanks to the web hosting service I *pay* for (http:// 
www.ukhost4u.com/). Not much, I pay less than £5 a month, the price  
of a computer magazine and I have a lot more fun playing with my  
websites, I learn a lot more by getting in contact with interesting  
persons via my websites. But what I pay for the web hosting gives an  
idea of what would be required for a good infrastructure and a  
quality service. Given the actual size of the revolution market,  
assuming that a maximum of 200 persons are ready to pay for the  
service (and this is overoptimistic, closer to reality would be 50),  
about $5 a month per user should be collected for it to be viable  
(worth the amount of time spent on this).


Who on this list would be ready to pay $5 a month... for an  
infrastructure that largely exploits the material that comes out on  
the mailing list anyway? Would you prefer to pay less but have the  
website filled with ads?


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:  http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/
Lexicall: http://lexicall.org
Revolution-education: http://revolution.lexicall.org

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution




___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Dave LeYanna]

Marielle Lange wrote:

clip



Exactly! ... but you also have to take into account economical factors.

For us, users, what counts is free access to quality information,  
frequently updated.


But the ones who are likely to make a quality contribution to this  
documentation are experts (see this mailing list, for instance).  
Experts are happy to do that in a context where they get something  
back (meaningful life, giving back... but also securing a regular  
income). It's not just about standards, it's about finding a way for  
persons to work collaboratively, but still have a way for the experts  
to have their contribution and level of expertise recognized. A  
mailing list is most suitable for experts because each email posted  
by an expert is a small add for his company.


How about a small "Google text Ad" kinda thing that would hold the 
equilivant of a sigiture next to the wiki contribution?


Dave


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:  http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/
Lexicall: http://lexicall.org
Revolution-education: http://revolution.lexicall.org

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your 
subscription preferences:

http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution




___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

In our little corner of the programming universe, I think that most  
anyone
only has time to skim, collect some valuable tidbits, contribute  
answers as

time and mood permit, then go on with our lives.
If I decided to follow this path and contribute, my wife would kill  
me.


That's a very important point.  I tried with similar projects in  
education. Everybody is interested in having things made available  
for free. Nobody is much interested (1) in taking  
*responsibilities*... that is you are the one eventually working all  
night to put everything back together in case a hacker decided to put  
your site to the test and  (2) in helping to fund the development of  
"open" content or "open" source that would *immensely* benefit the  
community in the longer term. So at the end, if you have been crazy  
enough to start doing it, you end up being the one doing 90% of the  
job that needs to be done, and on your hobby time.


Materials is easy to contribute. A clever and reliable  
infrastructure, responsibly managed and maintainted, to host that  
material often comes with a price tag (at least  months full time).


For instance, I can afford to have my websites because maintenance is  
made easy... thanks to the web hosting service I *pay* for (http:// 
www.ukhost4u.com/). Not much, I pay less than £5 a month, the price  
of a computer magazine and I have a lot more fun playing with my  
websites, I learn a lot more by getting in contact with interesting  
persons via my websites. But what I pay for the web hosting gives an  
idea of what would be required for a good infrastructure and a  
quality service. Given the actual size of the revolution market,  
assuming that a maximum of 200 persons are ready to pay for the  
service (and this is overoptimistic, closer to reality would be 50),  
about $5 a month per user should be collected for it to be viable  
(worth the amount of time spent on this).


Who on this list would be ready to pay $5 a month... for an  
infrastructure that largely exploits the material that comes out on  
the mailing list anyway? Would you prefer to pay less but have the  
website filled with ads?


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:  http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/
Lexicall: http://lexicall.org
Revolution-education: http://revolution.lexicall.org

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Marielle Lange]

The examples go on forever. Why should the same weary volunteer  
experts -- on newsgroups and help boards -- answer the same 200 or  
300 questions over and over and over again? For such questions, all  
that is needed would be a link to the right page on the wiki or the  
right page in the onboard help documentation. That would leave the  
volunteer gurus free to field the relatively few new, significant  
questions. Once solved, those issues would also go to the docWiki.  
And so on.


Welcome to the wiki sect... sorry universe Tim!

I'm not talking about just Apple or Windows. Every application,  
programming language, specific machine, etc., would all benefit  
from this approach. The thing that makes me crazy about this, when  
I think about it, is that it just wouldn't be very difficult, or  
expensive, for any manufacturer or developer to participate.


To the point.

Some kind of open standard for onboard and/or online help would be  
very helpful, of course.


Exactly! ... but you also have to take into account economical factors.

For us, users, what counts is free access to quality information,  
frequently updated.


But the ones who are likely to make a quality contribution to this  
documentation are experts (see this mailing list, for instance).  
Experts are happy to do that in a context where they get something  
back (meaningful life, giving back... but also securing a regular  
income). It's not just about standards, it's about finding a way for  
persons to work collaboratively, but still have a way for the experts  
to have their contribution and level of expertise recognized. A  
mailing list is most suitable for experts because each email posted  
by an expert is a small add for his company.


I know that in some game or open source development communities, they  
have a way to "rank" contributors. Anybody with more information on  
this? (reputation system, is it called?).


Then, in the economical world, there is the notion of "decisive  
advantage". It's a bit frightening for experts to participate to an  
initiative that may have some community members accede to "master"  
level 3 times faster than they would have 10 years ago... just  
because of the important difference in quality of information. Even  
more frightening if community members come to believe they don't need  
experts anymore.


I am for a free society. I am personally not interested in money. I  
would do exactly the same amount of work if I was paid nothing for it  
(then in a society where I have no rent to pay, where food is free).  
But we are not in a "free society". We all have a rent or mortgage to  
pay. So, how can we get to a fair balance between the interests of  
all parties: the ones who use services and the ones who guarantee the  
quality of the service we use?


Marielle
 


Marielle Lange (PhD),  Psycholinguist

Alternative emails: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Homepage:  http://homepages.lexicall.org/mlange/
Lexicall: http://lexicall.org
Revolution-education: http://revolution.lexicall.org

___
use-revolution mailing list
use-revolution@lists.runrev.com
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription 
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution

Re: docWikis

[Jim Ault]

Of course, who decides what qualifies as good/excellent content..  Expert
level, moderate, beginner, one example, two, five, .. fastest algorithm,
easiest to write..  how to put pieces together to solve scenarios.. catalog
the exceptions and bugs.. even to build a rudimentary decision tree for
someone to follow to build an app..

All would be a very large task for several individuals.  Add to the mix that
the most accomplished contributors are advanced because they do this for a
living which means they have no time for their own documentation of
projects, let alone building a knowledge base.

In our little corner of the programming universe, I think that most anyone
only has time to skim, collect some valuable tidbits, contribute answers as
time and mood permit, then go on with our lives.

As they say, "managing programmers is like herding cats", and that is the
way it should be.  I wish you good luck getting support.  If I decided to
follow this path and contribute, my wife would kill me.

Jim Ault
Las Vegas


On 10/17/05 5:09 PM, "Timothy Miller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

> It suddenly occurs to me that the docWiki issue goes far beyond
> Revolution, though it's possible that Rev could be the first software
> company to take full advantage of the opportunity. As others have
> mentioned, Rev is a great platform for a comprehensive and
> frequently-upgradeable help system.
> 
> For instance...
> 
> The help files on my OS 10.3.9 Macintosh are okay, compared to
> previous incarnations of the Macintosh, and compared to the help
> files on Windows XP, frinstance. Compared to what the Macintosh
> onboard docs *could* be, given lots of generous, loyal, knowledgeable
> users, a very small team of editors, a wiki, and a few tech tricks,
> they are a disgraceful disgrace!
> 
> Why should I have to spend precious minutes--or hours--hunting on the
> Apple support site for a technical bulletin that I hope will explain
> why my modem won't send faxes, and how to make it work? If other
> users have had the same problem, and solved it, one of them would
> donate the needed information to the Macintosh docWiki, in clear
> English, plus maybe a link to the technical bulletin.
> 
> The editors could check it for accuracy, add some "related links"
> index it and cross-reference it, release it to their public docWiki,
> and at the same time, release it to the next generation of indexed,
> cross-referenced help docs, ready for download, or update, or
> whatever. The topics could -- and maybe should -- be searchable in
> several different ways -- filter, search-for, logic-tree, FAQs by
> topic and subtopic, etc. Maybe boolean, too.
> 
> Such docs could -- and maybe should -- be updated frequently, maybe
> every day, and eligible for automatic updating, should the user
> desire it.
> 
> In the same way, docWiki users could suggest clearer wording on
> topics already in use, novice, intermediate, and expert versions of
> the same topic, terse or verbose versions, and so on. Some topics
> would be specific to one machine model, OS version, or software
> version. Users of one machine, or one software version, ideally,
> could download only the information necessary for the software, the
> machine and the OS they actually use, though public docWikis would
> remain available for other versions, other machines, and so on.
> 
> The examples go on forever. Why should the same weary volunteer
> experts -- on newsgroups and help boards -- answer the same 200 or
> 300 questions over and over and over again? For such questions, all
> that is needed would be a link to the right page on the wiki or the
> right page in the onboard help documentation. That would leave the
> volunteer gurus free to field the relatively few new, significant
> questions. Once solved, those issues would also go to the docWiki.
> And so on.
> 
> Onboard help files could and should be integrated in such a way that
> help documentation from various sources could be merged for indexing
> and retrieval-- yet tracked separately, so they could be deleted or
> updated separately, if needed. Like if I upgrade to a newer version
> of PageSpinner, for instance, the onboard docs for PageSpinner would
> be refreshed at the same time, without disrupting anything else.
> 
> Macintosh already does something along these lines. But the
> documentation is so thin... Any time I have a slightly unusual or
> complex issue, I can be pretty certain the answer I need will *not*
> be in the onboard help docs.
> 
> I'm not talking about just Apple or Windows. Every application,
> programming language, specific machine, etc., would all benefit from
> this approach. The thing that makes me crazy about this, when I think
> about it, is that it just wouldn't be very difficult, or expensive,
> for any manufacturer or developer to participate.
> 
> Some kind of open standard for onboard and/or online help would be
> very helpful, of course. God knows we don't want Bill Gates to choose
> the sta

Re: docWikis

[Timothy Miller]

It suddenly occurs to me that the docWiki issue goes far beyond 
Revolution, though it's possible that Rev could be the first software 
company to take full advantage of the opportunity. As others have 
mentioned, Rev is a great platform for a comprehensive and 
frequently-upgradeable help system.


For instance...

The help files on my OS 10.3.9 Macintosh are okay, compared to 
previous incarnations of the Macintosh, and compared to the help 
files on Windows XP, frinstance. Compared to what the Macintosh 
onboard docs *could* be, given lots of generous, loyal, knowledgeable 
users, a very small team of editors, a wiki, and a few tech tricks, 
they are a disgraceful disgrace!


Why should I have to spend precious minutes--or hours--hunting on the 
Apple support site for a technical bulletin that I hope will explain 
why my modem won't send faxes, and how to make it work? If other 
users have had the same problem, and solved it, one of them would 
donate the needed information to the Macintosh docWiki, in clear 
English, plus maybe a link to the technical bulletin.


The editors could check it for accuracy, add some "related links" 
index it and cross-reference it, release it to their public docWiki, 
and at the same time, release it to the next generation of indexed, 
cross-referenced help docs, ready for download, or update, or 
whatever. The topics could -- and maybe should -- be searchable in 
several different ways -- filter, search-for, logic-tree, FAQs by 
topic and subtopic, etc. Maybe boolean, too.


Such docs could -- and maybe should -- be updated frequently, maybe 
every day, and eligible for automatic updating, should the user 
desire it.


In the same way, docWiki users could suggest clearer wording on 
topics already in use, novice, intermediate, and expert versions of 
the same topic, terse or verbose versions, and so on. Some topics 
would be specific to one machine model, OS version, or software 
version. Users of one machine, or one software version, ideally, 
could download only the information necessary for the software, the 
machine and the OS they actually use, though public docWikis would 
remain available for other versions, other machines, and so on.


The examples go on forever. Why should the same weary volunteer 
experts -- on newsgroups and help boards -- answer the same 200 or 
300 questions over and over and over again? For such questions, all 
that is needed would be a link to the right page on the wiki or the 
right page in the onboard help documentation. That would leave the 
volunteer gurus free to field the relatively few new, significant 
questions. Once solved, those issues would also go to the docWiki. 
And so on.


Onboard help files could and should be integrated in such a way that 
help documentation from various sources could be merged for indexing 
and retrieval-- yet tracked separately, so they could be deleted or 
updated separately, if needed. Like if I upgrade to a newer version 
of PageSpinner, for instance, the onboard docs for PageSpinner would 
be refreshed at the same time, without disrupting anything else.


Macintosh already does something along these lines. But the 
documentation is so thin... Any time I have a slightly unusual or 
complex issue, I can be pretty certain the answer I need will *not* 
be in the onboard help docs.


I'm not talking about just Apple or Windows. Every application, 
programming language, specific machine, etc., would all benefit from 
this approach. The thing that makes me crazy about this, when I think 
about it, is that it just wouldn't be very difficult, or expensive, 
for any manufacturer or developer to participate.


Some kind of open standard for onboard and/or online help would be 
very helpful, of course. God knows we don't want Bill Gates to choose 
the standard!


When I think about it this way, Rev is already doing a very good job 
of indexing its onboard documentation, with plenty of hyperlinks, 
"see also" links, scripting examples, and so on. Better than any 
other application I use. (I don't know about other development 
environments. Rev is the only one I use.)


All that's missing -- for Rev -- is more of same, plus a wiki, for 
continuous improvement and expansion, plus an editorial team, plus 
frequent downloadable updates.


Just a thought. A minor inspiration. I dunno -- maybe stupid -- maybe 
already thought of, or on the way. I'm not a computer professional.


Cheers,


Tim


On 17 Oct 2005, at 12:45, Marielle Lange wrote:


Anybody to keep an eye on my wiki during that time


Sure I know TikiWiki pretty well by now - can you give me admin 
access so i can turn off those smileys :)


I did find this 
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=SoftwareRevolution, 
but felt that it wasn't quite what I was looking for.


In what sense?

These page are meant to serve exactly the same purpose  you propose.
http://revolution.lexicall.org/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=RevolutionSnippetTips
http://r