> That's something not specific to osflash. You can find in most Flash > books or online sites (kirupa?). We can't expect osflash to cater to > every single segment of the audience; at least an intermediate working > knowledge of Flash is assumed.
I otherwise agree with you, but I'm not certain about this point. A osflash specific introduction to generating SWFs would be helpful, IMHO. We have already seen a few people join us who didn't have any prior experience with Flash, but with other backgrounds. Existing introductions to Flash assume you have the Flash IDE installed, and often target the designer who decides to do a bit more than just jumping around the timeline, i.e., they are teaching 90% programming and only 10% the Flash specifics interesting for somebody new to the platform, but not to programming. So far /most/ here have switched from the Flash IDE, but we should be open for a new audience starting with osflash tools and skipping the Flash IDE altogether (e.g., Linux users can't even install the trial version to learn the basics). I've been wanting to write something like an introduction to creating SWFs for non-Flash-IDE-switchers for a long time now, but still haven't had the time. Mark On 9/5/06, Ray Chuan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On 9/5/06, João Saleiro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Well, people here are geek, and we have geek talks. And we prefer being > > geek and talking geek. Personally i would prefer to have two different > > systems: and "introductory" site, *presenting* what's osflash and how to > > use it, and the current system for developers. > > It's not discrimination: when i was starting with osflash, i had a lot > > of doubts (concerning the language itself, despite knowing quite a lot > > about actionscript already) that i didn't formulated on the mailing > > list, because they weren't "geeky" enough. And some of the ones i've > > asked were never answered. And today, i prefer reading and talking about > > "how to apply this design pattern" or "what do you think about this > > framework" than "how can i load a MovieClip?". > > That's something not specific to osflash. You can find in most Flash > books or online sites (kirupa?). We can't expect osflash to cater to > every single segment of the audience; at least an intermediate working > knowledge of Flash is assumed. > > But of course it's not always clear cut what is considered basic. What > may be basic for a pro may not be for a new user. "Basic" could refer > to how the Flash player operates, searches for properties, etc, or > something like loading an external swf into a movieclip (which you > mentioned earlier). > > > In resume, I would prefer one "Welcome to Osflash, learn about osflash" > > web-site and another "now that you know the basics of osflash, let's > > start doing big things like we, geeky developers, do" website. It's a > > matter of opinion, and this is mine... > > > > João Saleiro > > > > PS: Geek in a good meaning, of course :P > > > > > > > > Ian Thomas wrote: > > >>> Or improving the current wiki. > > >>> > > > > > > I think this sounds much more viable than creating a whole newbie site > > > from scratch. If the information isn't there - then add it to the > > > Wiki. That's why it's a Wiki, after all! > > > > > > Ian > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > osflash mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > osflash mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > > > > > -- > Cheers, > Ray Chuan > > _______________________________________________ > osflash mailing list > [email protected] > http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org > _______________________________________________ osflash mailing list [email protected] http://osflash.org/mailman/listinfo/osflash_osflash.org
