Benoit St-Pierre wrote:
Benoit,
First of all: you get me wrong.
2nd, I do not nail you in any edge.
3rd, I comply with Pascal that the documentation is the most
important thing. There're two main parts:
- A really good tutorial for a newbe user
- An entire read through of the current online help
I think, that the Tutorial should be available in some
online help and one can consider a web version of it as
well, I'm actually not sure myself what the best thing is to
have it.
I disagree with Pascal with regards to "txt is enough". It's
enough for me, I really like man-pages, but we need some
graphical representations to get a tutorial done right, e.g.
it will have to contain screenshots and explain them. This
is not possible in txt, that's the point where I consider
HTML more suitabel, or even PDF from some LaTeX or whatever.
I do not share Pascals aversion of XML. Definitely not. (I
also do not share the opinion that XML is the cure for
life, earth and everything, but thats another discussion.)
> Scid ain't a chess program : you don't play against Scid.
I know. You got this wrong. Maybe I used some play of words
in "german translated" manner. Sorry for that.
What I wanted to say is, if you ask some people out there on
the user level "what is Scid" the answer will be "a chess
program". It will not be "a toolkit" or a "suite" and in
most cases not even "a chess database". Its really hard to
grasp for them, my usual fall back is "think of ChessBase 9
for free".
To my understanding, the tutorial should start there. "A
chess program" and then, why does it not compare to
Fritz-like programs, what is the advantage of a "ChessBase"
like program, stuff like that.
Words like "toolkit" or "suite" IMHO do not fit.
> It contains a database, some chess programs and some other
> fancy tools.
Actually, it will be missleading if you say "it contains a
database". I just got "where are the games" back for one of
the announcements of the 3.6.25 release. ;)
> So what is it ? I don't want to have to rewrite all the
> synonyms I invent for that after finishing writing !
A point I can understand. I'd still label it a "chess
database" if put into correct wording, but I think you've to
start out from the "a chess program" like thinking.
> I don't want us to talk past each other here : I know one
> must keep things simple.
Yes. I sometimes disagree with Pascals way of keeping things
simple. Mostly, when this means "they have to do things my
way, it does not have to be flexible, this only introduces
complexity." ;)
> But if you maintain content in a bad design, you lose
> everybody's time. I am not speaking from a theorical point of view
> only : if you want to WRITE about stuff, you must know how all the
> stuff is related together.
I perfectly agree in that point. But I also think that we'd
be good advised to keep a low technical profile. You see, if
you look over this list, you'll find a hand full of
programers that work on the scid code. This are not too much,
ther're some things we'd almost need to come to at some
point but we do not have the manpower. Recent larger issues
were (chosen randomly without any order or weighting)
Chess960, 6-men-TB, DGT support... On the coding side: open
parts. I'm also in the development of improvments for Xfcc
and we've some ideas, and hopefully get this started soon,
to invent services in that area for OTB chess as well.
But if now this hand full of programming poeple is required
to keep the doc server running, we come to a real problem. I
admit, if I'd not have wirtten any help pages for CC, I
believe I'd already have finished the input engine code.
Actually, I even liked it if someone other would have
written those docs, I'm not sure if they are really clear if
you do not know the algorithm. But currently you'll have to
write the mans within the tcl. I gave away german
translation for the larger part, but even working in what I
recieved took me some hours.
And I'm only doing simple things, you know? I just use the
Scid framework on the high level API. Pascal is the one
"down below".
> I know it is the case for this very site because I tried
> already to write stuff. Really, it's the same thing as
> having an example file for a quick introduction.
I think this is a good thing. I even like your ideas. This
is all great stuff, thats not the point. I just have the
slight fear, that you open to many construction sites
simultaneously.
Ok, I'll be beaten. So be it. Look at ChessX. Chosen
randomly, but just as it has/had(?) the mission to replace
Scid. A great program. From its ideas. There are just
several "but"s. They opend up _every_ construction site.
Really every. Scids database structures were uncool, the
database format outdated, compatibilty "never", the code
ugly, the API outdated. "It has to be done right." was the general
tenor in the project while I followed it more closely. And
it had to be "redone right" with every other micro release
of QT. A lot of effort went into it. But: It will never make
it beyond a PGN viewer. And even there, better ones exist.
But surely it will have one of the best class structures.
For what it's worth.
The step from "ok" (say 90% perfect) to "perfect" is really
huge. And 90% working is better than 100% never finished. I
just saw this to often happen to really cool open source
projects or part of it, therefore I just wanted to warn to
to be to ambitious and be a bit carefull with the workload
you create for your own.
> Yes, I would like to maintain the pages. Yes, I would
> like to maintain all the pages that I create.
I do not doubt that.
> Yes, I know they must be simplified a lot, to leavy up the
> burden. I already said that we can delete all the Help
> files from the site !
We agree here. Perfectly agree.
> Really, using a CSS that deals with a navigation pan is
> quite easy to set up
Agree as well.
> : there are lots of solutions already available over the
> Internet.
I know.
> It's pretty more efficient than having to go after the
> cells of a table to modify some content.
Sure. But the question is, if the top priority is to fix up
the CSS of the website or to cross- and proof-read the docs.
I fear that latter is not half the fun but the more pressing
issue. I hardly use the docs of Scid, but I fear in some
areas they might be plainly wrong, considering the changes
from 3.6.1 to 3.6.25.
Anyway, get this straight: I'll not hinder you by any means
if you want to set up an entirly new web presence for Scid.
From my point of view: feel free to do and do as you feel
fit to do it using whatever tools you like.
I would suggest to put it together seperately from the
current page and move it in place once it is finshed. NOT
because I fear you will never finish, but just to avoid the
look of a site broken in pieces. And also keep in mind that
it might well happen that your job or whatever will not
allow you to take care of it anymore or as much as you like
to do. So if there is an option to pass on parts or the
entire site to someone else, it would be perfect.
--
Kind regards, / War is Peace.
| Freedom is Slavery.
Alexander Wagner | Ignorance is Strength.
|
| Theory : G. Orwell, "1984"
/ In practice: USA, since 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email is sponsored by the Moblin Your Move Developer's challenge
Build the coolest Linux based applications with Moblin SDK & win great prizes
Grand prize is a trip for two to an Open Source event anywhere in the world
http://moblin-contest.org/redirect.php?banner_id=100&url=/
_______________________________________________
Scid-users mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scid-users
