I've found jQuery Docs very "difficult" at the beggining too. They are for different kind of people I suppose. As a developer - and not designer - I prefer mootools one.
But now I'm on a project requiring jQuery, and only now (after two weeks) I'm feeling confortable. A year or two ago, with low experience with JS, I needed demos to see what I can do, but not anymore. I'm even feel dumb seeing the demos. Then I suppose that this "need for demos" are only for starters in JS world. A friend of mine - and high skilled DESIGNER - feels the same. After knowing how jQuery and mootools works, he prefers the technical docs, instead of "starter" docs. He learned the world of arrays, integers, objects, inheritance and so on, where before he only saw pixels, colors, padding, margin, ... It is a very subjective question. On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 9:32 AM, Savageman <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, I have more information, here is what I gathered. > > He said: > 1. it's indeed very complete, but we need time to get the information > we want. > 2. it's lacking a "Getting started". > 3. There is no quick reference: when we click a class on the left, all > the methods are shown on the right and all their associated > documentation is on the same page. As an index page for a class, it > would be nicer to list all the methods from it, associated with a > little explanation (like on php.net). > 4. Also demos are missing. I think they should be merged with the > documentation. > 5. There is no categorized topics. The structure organisation only on > the classes structure. For instance, the Element class has too much > methods for a human to reasonably make it looks good in his mind. > Maybe some categories like on the jQuery documentation would be nice > (attributes, traversing, manipulation). > > I will add some personal thoughts about it: > 1. Some things are not entirely clear. To get the ID of an element, we > can either do .get('id') or .getProperty('id') : what's the > "recommended" way? > The .get() method explains we can use any key from the > Element.Properties hash with a link on it. But when we click on > Element.Properties, we don't get a list of what it contains. We need > to guess here and try which attribute can be retrieved this way and > which can't. > 2. Some things are well hidden, like the custom events mousenter / > mouseleave / mousewheel, which never appear in the menus. > > On an (almost) unrelated topic, all the getter / setter for properties > mention "attribute" in their description. Why don't call them > "attributes" then? > > On Aug 17, 12:55 pm, Oskar Krawczyk <[email protected]> wrote: > > "bad" in what sense, can he elaborate on that? > > > > I never had any problems with the docs - apart from some sections being > overly long (but that's a good thing). > > > > Best, > > Oskar > > > > On 2010-08-17, at 09:00, Savageman wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hey, > > > > > When I showed MT to a friend, one of the thing he told me was that the > > > documentation was... bad. > > > So before to try and figure out something better, I would like to know > > > the status on this. Is a new doc planned for MT 2 ? > > > Which repo should I get if I want to try some things out? > > > > > Thanks. >
