James E. Bailey wrote:
That is very well covered in LM 5, so I can understand why it wouldn't
be duplicated.
That was my concern about the policy in the LM to never cover anything
that was previously covered...it means that you (the reader) have to
have integrated the content of previous sections to understand/use later
sections. Some of the best tutorial writing I've seen (the LM is
supposed to be the tutorial part not the reference part right?), repeats
stuff a lot, so that learning each part, the basic context is always
present to make it clearer. Of course I don't mean repeat everything
everywhere, that would be silly, but things that make an obvious context
are present where needed, instead of referring someone to somewhere
else, or worse, not referring them to somewhere else because they should
have integrated previous sections. I believe that the policy is normal
for reference material, but inherently decreases the usability of
tutorial material.
Just my two cents and I know I'll have no influence and know that the
great documentation project is winding down, but just wanted to say it
because it's been a frustration of mine. I wish I'd gotten involved
sooner instead of coming in to the list when the project was well
underway and teams in place. After reading and commenting on a couple
of sections and being told that we don't do things that way, I felt
rebuffed and just shut up and quit reviewing things. It was clear that
it was a style clash that I couldn't resolve.
That said, I'd also like to say that there's a lot of really good
writing in the LM. I've read all the documentation, (both the last and
the new as it comes out) and it's a HUGE improvement, thank you:)
Patrick
_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
