On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 10:41:52AM +0200, Roman Joost wrote: > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 12:21:06AM -0700, Manish Singh wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 08:03:49AM +0200, Roman Joost wrote: > > > tutorials are just another medium of pointing out how things work. > > > Jimmac made in the early days of GIMP 2.0 videos which where greatly > > > accepted by the users. Why not Flash as well? > > > > Animation and video are good for demos and advertising. If you want to > > see a cool demo of how jimmac uses GIMP, it's great. If you want to > > actually follow along, refer back to it parts of it later, search > > through it, or discuss finer points of it with others on mailing lists, > > irc, etc., it sucks. It's not really effective *documentation*. > Thats the same with the flash movie. It is definitely not the intention > to replace our documentation by flash tutorials. It's just a different > way of telling people how things work. Thats all ... nothing more ... > > > If it's important enough to be documented, it's important enough to be > > put in a useful format. Other formats are secondary. > Sure - but whats 'useful'? The average user might have a total different > understanding about what is useful for him than what is useful for us as > developers. I think users probably don't care which format the content > is distributed unless they can access it. This could be really bad or > good some times ... This flash movie seemed to be aimed at developers.... > > This flash video especially, the content is so much better done as a > > static tutorial. Who wants to keep hitting pause if you don't follow > > along fast enough, or twiddle your thumbs while you wait for it catch up > > with you? Like I said, the animation adds no value. > Sure, but it's now a Flash and not a static tutorial. Jan put time in > creating those movies and afterwards we're discussing what will be the > best format to distribute the content. > > Why not making them available and let the public decide if it's good or > bad for them? > > I sometimes have the feeling that contributions were discussed to death, > instead of placing them somewhere people can find and improve them > afterwards. I feel what belongs on official GIMP pages should have some baseline standards, just like what goes in the codebase has to live up to a standard of code quality. What's next after Flash? Word documents? -Yosh _______________________________________________ Gimp-docs mailing list Gimp-docs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-docs
