David (Thursday, 02. September 2010)
> However the solution may be very simple. Use a layout like
> http://www.gimp.org/docs/
> with "wilber | GIMP" in the top orange bar to the left, linked to
> gimp.org. That's how I did it in my mock-up.

Hmm, nice idea. :-)  We could add the link to the header of the first 
page (index.html).
But note that the header (and footer) navigation bars are 
automatically created (by docbooks-xsl stylesheets), and AFAIK we 
can't add some arbitrary text to the header. (We'd have to customize 
the header generating template.)

> Are you familiar with the F shaped scan that readers' eyes are
> supposed to use on web pages? It's all to do with getting at the
> info quickly. So, I'm suggesting putting the readable info where
> the eye goes. I'll mock up some pages where I feel I'm currently
> being overwhelmed by images, if that seems likely to help.

Never heard of this (again, this doesn't mean anything), but is sounds 
reasonable. An example would still be useful, however, (especially an 
example where the GIMP manual is hard to read due to misplaced 
> >> 3. Section 1.2 needs to tell me *how* to install the context
> >> sensitive help
> > 
> > This seems to be a common Windows problem.
> A good idea to have it in the manual then :)

Maybe, but I can't do anything here.

> section I.3.1
>   "Channels

Oh god, the dark side of the GIMP moon... ;-)

>      In GIMP, Channels are the smallest units of subdivision in the
> stack of layers from which the image is constructed."
> That's wrong! The 'smallest unit of subdivision in a stack of
> layers' is (probably) 'one layer'. I actually thought GIMP had a
> different definition/concept to everyone else on reading that, and
> I read it several times before deciding to ignore it. The manual
> needs rewriting here with a small picture to clarify. I'm a bit
> hesitant to give specific text, because I'm not clear how GIMP
> views itself.

Obviously it's at least misleading. I think there are two different 
ways of looking at the layer stack:
You are looking from "beside" the layer stack, and you see layers like 
in the layers dialog.
The author (Axel?) is looking from the top layer "through" the layer 
stack to the bottom (background) layer. (At least I think that's what 
he had in mind...) So he doesn't see single layers, and his "smallest 
unit of subdivision in a stack of layers" is the smallest unit of a 
pixel: a channel-

> Incidentally, at the top of that page we have:
> "everything mentioned here is so high-level that you can easily
> locate it in the index" - so
> Try looking for 'channel'...
> Confusing number of entries, aren't there? Unfortunately not one to
> I.3.1. :( Only one looks promising:
> Introduction, Glossary
> "A Channel is a single component of a pixel's color."

The index is far from being perfect/complete.

> Oh dear, that's not the same as
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Channel_(digital_image)
> nor I believe is it what Section I.3.1 is trying to define.
> There's an alternative definition further down, but it's too late
> then - the user (me) is already confused.
> Noting that the glossary (presumably intended to be the 'full'
> explanation of 'channel') has much the same length of text as in
> Section I.3.1, my suggestion here would be to nail the thing
> properly in Section I.3.1.

Yes. (BTW, glossary entries should be short, providing e.g. a 
simplified summary/definition of the respective item, IMHO.)

Ok, so it looks like we have to
(1) rewrite I.3.1 (based on the - adapted - wikipedia article and
    the glossary entry?),
(2) add an index entry which refers to I.3.1, and
(3) write a new (short and basic) glossary definition.


I volunteer myself for (2).


Pleonasmus: scheinheilig.
                -- Karlheinz Deschner

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Gimp-docs mailing list

Reply via email to