>Heine, Dieter wrote: > >> As a tool mostly used as an API for developers with (mostly guessed) a >> commercial background there is not much time left for documentation. > >Ah, like that. Well yes, that's valid. We all have dayjobs that are >not Midgard-related. > >> I >> guess that e.g. Mr Hammer maybe had more non-commercial use for it and >> therefor asked for better documentation. Commercial was meant in >> combination with professional. Private or common users usually don't >> start with complicated APIs.Professionals on the other hand usually need >> less documentation (or use the source for docu purpose ) > >I understand. Well, professionals need good docu too, I think. >
For me it was a case of not exactly knowing what I was installing. I knew I was installing a content management system as a request of a client. I had never used one before and didn't really know what I was supposed to do with it after installation. There was a getting started section for installation. A post install "getting started" section would have been nice. But.. I think I figured out late last night what I am supposed to do with the product so I think I am good to go. >> However I think it is clear task of many satisfied users whether for >> private or commercial use to document their experiences as a service >> return to the project Ry. The question why this didnot happen yet maybe >> possibly be answered with a more commercial utilization. > >Don't discount that writing docs is hard. People may feel intimidated >by the technical nature of it. Which shouldn't be an issue (see 'fresh >look' post of a few days ago), but I think that's how it's percieved. > >Emile I will give credit to whoever wrote the docs for Midgard. It isn't an easy job. I may have approached things a little differently but I will say that whoever worked on the docs put a LOT of time in on it. Dan --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
