> On 05/09/2010 11:17, Hugh Loebner wrote:
> > Why not link to Inkscape, an open source drawing program?
> Because this part of the manual is about drawing shapes in GIMP (and only
> "More is less". More information than needed makes the manual less useful.
> That's partly a good principle, but needs to be used in a balanced way. It
> strikes me that
> a brief explanation that Gimp is not designed to be used for drawing shapes,
> other programs such as Inkscape are specifically intended for that purpose,
> might save
> the user considerable time and effort.
That's true - but I do feel that this is the *wrong place* for it. The same
('link to Inkscape') argument applies to section 1.5, and to section 7.13.1, as
well as to section 7.13.2 (which I previously incorrectly identified as section
13.2, due to that being the way the page identifies itself ;) ). It's possible
that someone using paths might like to know about Inkscape too.
Surely we would not want 3 or more similar references out to Inkscape?
It would certainly be possible clarify the difference between vector and pixel
based programs under 'basic concepts' - and link out there...
> But beyond that, it's also true that the manual *can* be something that people
> will be
> able to read in order to learn how the program works, rather than just
> something to
> consult when there is a problem. The ideal is to make it both. I did a lot
> work on
> Gimp Help about five years ago, and was definitely aiming to make it
> something that
> people could read.
It's certainly readable - there's *loads* of good information :). My main
concern is that it needs organising (and some editing). It feels as if it has
grown and grown, with different people adding different bits, but without an
I'm not suggesting that it's merely a problem solver - clearly people who come
to the program for the first time have to read the manual to learn how the
program works - but you can bet on it that they'll stop reading as soon as they
Gimp-docs mailing list