[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: constructive criticism
From: |
Aaron |
Subject: |
Re: constructive criticism |
Date: |
Thu, 08 Jan 2004 11:10:19 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031205 Thunderbird/0.4 |
First of all I agree that add work for the maintainer of lilypond is in
the long run a very bad idea.
Making Hans fiddle with the docs means less improvement to the program
that said.
There are many levels to improving the docs. Some issues are infact
really bugs: The doc says do x but it does acheive the results stated.
Then there are other issues:
Is that particular item understandable?
What about the structure of that entry, maybe it could be more
understandable if written differently.
There is also the issue of making a cleaner seperation between the
hacking issues and the more straight forward howto issues.
I have often clicked a link to find more about a subject instead of
infact finding more about that subject I find scheme stuff.
These issues are not exactly bugs but style issues and matters of
opinion, ie a programmer will think that more information about tremolos
should be the scheme stuff, and a nonprogrammer would hope for more
examples or different types of tremolos.
Getting all of the list involved in the documention is in the long run
a time saving issue for everyone because there is a connection between
the quality of the docs and the usability of Lilypond.
A bug should reported as a bug, that is obvious.
I feel that the users are the ones who will improve and refine the docs,
once a technical solution for including them in the process is found.
I am not such a wiki fan.
But if nothing better exists so be it.
I am also willing to assist on this somehow. But I also don't think the
docs need a rewriting as much as a way for users imput to shape and
refine them.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The FAQ and wish list ideas were for reducing traffic on the users group
and to make it easier for the users/developer to find the information
they contain: Faq and wish list items.
A F.A.Q and wish list would however be seperate from the regular docs
and could even be setup as a faqomat See the CVS site. A faq would be a
place for users to go when the docs aren't enough and before they try
the users group or in the case of the wish list to see if someone else
wants the same feature and vote on it.
my take on this,
Aaron
- Re: constructive criticism, (continued)
- Re: constructive criticism, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/01/07
- Re: constructive criticism, Nick Busigin, 2004/01/07
- Re: constructive criticism, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Aaron, 2004/01/10
- Re: emacs editing, was constructive criticism, Paul Scott, 2004/01/10
- Re: constructive criticism, Jan Nieuwenhuizen, 2004/01/10
- Re: constructive criticism, Ferenc Wagner, 2004/01/07
- Re: constructive criticism,
Aaron <=
- Re: constructive criticism, Mats Bengtsson, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Ferenc Wagner, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Nick Busigin, 2004/01/08
- property syntax (was Re: constructive criticism), John Williams, 2004/01/09
- property syntax (was Re: constructive criticism), Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/01/10
- Re: constructive criticism, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Aaron, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Han-Wen Nienhuys, 2004/01/08
- Re: constructive criticism, Aaron, 2004/01/08