>> If you would go a little slower, it would help me a lot. When you >> explain, you go ahead and cover many things which are not my current >> problem. That makes me get lost about which are the steps I have to >> take. I do not have the criteria to know which of the informations >> that >> you provide is the one to use at that moment. So I get paralyzed >> and >> just abandon. (Of course that trying anything would be the right >> course. But it is not my normal reaction.) I am very stubborn. So >> I >> come back motivated by my belief that eev uses the correct policy >> for >> making machines: the most hackable construction, so that the user is >> not >> a slave to the machine, but its master! >> >> The current problem that I have could serve as an example. >> >> El 2022-12-19 23:51, Eduardo Ochs escribió: >> >>> 1. Run this to download or update the subtitles for a certain >> video: >>> >>> (find-psne-eevvideo-links "2021-org-for-non-users" ".vtt") >> >> When I evaluated this hyperlink, a new buffer popped up as I have >> been >> accustomed to. That is not complicated. But that buffer contains a >> lot >> of information. There are two keybinding which I have learned that >> I >> have to employ in these situations, F8 or M-e. So when I use either >> of >> these keybindings, something will happen. I do not understand >> exactly >> what happens. (Lately I understand more. But I do not follow the >> direction that I need, it is just a flow.) I have to do that >> because I >> do not really know what to do. Sometimes I have to kill some of >> those >> buffers with M-k: when I either do not understand what has happened >> and >> hope that the commands do what I needed to meet a precondition for >> what >> I wanted (for example download a video into $S in order for it to be >> played or a document in order for eev's versions of find-file to >> open >> it) or when I have read all the document which is in the new buffer. >> It >> is not clear what is to be read for the current situation or which >> part >> of the video is relevant and where to stop. >> >> So my recommendation for the tutorials is to just mention the basics >> for >> the issue at the time and have an area to go for more information. >> The >> fact that those two informations (specific and extense) are separate >> would be very helpful to avoid getting lost in the beautiful jungle >> of >> completeness. If there is a video, have information of what to do >> in a >> summary. Then show all the information as optional additional >> resources. If there is a tutorial, mention a summary of what to do. >> >> Then describe the steps in detail. (I have seen this process in >> some >> tutorial whare you have employed this process.) If there is a >> question, >> just mention the next step, not the whole process. Be sure to ask >> what >> is the current situation. Then you can learn what to recommend. It >> is >> great to have the whole library of information. But it is better >> for a >> newbie that there is an obvious route to take as the first baby >> steps. >> Later, the newbie will become an expert which will go directly to >> the >> card catalogue, remember those? :-D I used to run away from those! >> >> But I do think that they are useful when you know how they work.
I do think that this is a complete explanation of what could probably be done. But I do not think that you have understood it. Perhaps I should explain it better. I don't think that you would want your tutorials to be hard to understand for newbies. I understand that you do not agree with me. But I do not understand why you want to do it that way. Don't you agree that helping newbies distinguish the relevant from the irrelevant would be useful? > You said (obs: sorry for the weird format, I am on a cell phone): > > Then show all the information as optional additional > resources. If there is a tutorial, mention a summary of what to do. > Then describe the steps in detail. (I have seen this process in some > tutorial whare you have employed this process.) > > Can you try to remember what was the tutorial in which I did things in > a way that worked for you? I think that one of my main problems is > that I don't know what are the questions that people have, and it's > very hard to get them to ask these questions... so when I interact > with people by IRC I can usually solve lots of people's problems in > five minutes, but by e-mail, or by docs and tutorials, the same > problems take five years to be solved... I am sorry. I just tried to generalize from the example that I presented on a provious email and cited above. My problems are not in a specific tutorial. It is general on all tutorials. But if it easier for you to understand, I clarify when you ask. I don't know how other people work. But I know that simple has no wrong route. The completeness can be there without it making the basic get lost. I tried to contact you many times on IRC. But usually you are not present at the times that I connect. Today I waited all day. > Let me give an example. If a person asks "how do I change the default > PDF viewer?" in many cases the real question is "how do I change the > default PDF viewer in a way in which I can understand what has been > done?"... and for some people a recipe using customize is the best > way, for others a setq is best, and for others, like me, a setq > preceded by two hyperlinks in comments that point to the docs and to > the source code is best, because I am very good at noticing that the > comments are pointers that can be ignored... Exactly! That is what I mean. A method to make parts to be ignored be less noticeable and the most important parts stand out would be very useful. I think that asking that the questions be clarified could help you define the questions better and answer what is really the problem and not what a certain perception would be. > Some of the feedback that I receive on eev is from people who try to > explain to me how they function, and they say things like: I am > totally unable to skip over irrelevant information - every time that I > read a page that has hyperlinks I read it linearly until I find the > first hyperlink, then I follow that hyperlink, then I read that other > page from the beginning until I find the first hyperlink, then I > follow that hyperlink, and so on. Can you rewrite your documentation > so that it will work for me? And I only know how to answer that in two > ways: either with a "no" or as in one of the Zen koans about > programming, in which, say, Master Sussman puts the sheet with the > questions in the toaster, "and then the student was enlightened"... I don't understand the second part. But I will just have to keep on trying the way you have constructed it before, if you are not interested in my sugestion. > Anyway, are you sure that what you asked above are your "real" > questions? Because... well, let's imagine that you change them to the > following. Let's imagine that you are on IRC, and you ask: "people, > how do you read manpages and source code? How do you decide what to > focus on and what to skip?"... That question could mean many things. But by clarification of the question, it would be eventually solved. I feel that IRC is less optimal because my issues allow less time than email to properly be explained. But I understand that others which are more intuitive and creative can be more comfortable in environments where spontaneity is handy. Anyway, I will use the communication medium which you decide. Thank you very much for your help!