[FM Discuss] Hi folks

Thu Jan 4 15:52:47 PST 2018

Hi Maren:

Sorry, I did completely miss that earlier message of yours.  The documenting process you've adopted looks really great, judging by your posted examples.  Animated GIFs can definitely take us part of the way, at least.  And you're absolutely right that video-tutorial production often takes more specialized (and different) skills to achieve the same quality standard as traditional text-and-screenshot -- although in my experience that's becoming less and less the case, as animation software (including screen-capture-animation software) becomes increasingly accessible.    But still definitely a consideration, along with the one raised earlier about the difficulty of open-source-editing video documentation.

And then, as you say, there is the question of what animation files could work with or be embedded within largely textual (but still digital) documents.  I was surprised to learn, when I started working with eLearning authoring tools, that Flash files of any complexity (even interactive) can be embedded in PDFs, as generated by Adobe Captivate (and I assume Articulate Storyline too).  People actually send complete eLearning courses and modules around to each other as PDFs all the time.  And certainly it is generally possible to embed Flash files in html--that was the whole idea of Flash--although I don't know the details of Booktype hmtl either.  The challenge there is that Flash itself is becoming deprecated, since it doesn't work on most mobile devices.  But short animated screen captures could (and are) also done as mp4 and .mov files, and those both can be embedded in PDF and html too.  Btw, and back to my earlier point about increased accessibility, it would take an absolute novice about 15 minutes to learn how to use the screen-capture-video feature of Adobe Captivate; the only real barrier there is the price of the software itself.  But there is lots of freeware for the same purpose---I've used Screenpresso myself to do screen capture vids for user testing, as well as static screen shots.  What Captivate adds is the ability to easily edit and annotate your screen vids, but I'm sure there's free software for that too.

Obviously none of this helps for documents that you intend to print out, but that pretty much goes without saying, and it seems that less and less tech writing practice in general is based around the assumption of printed material as opposed to digital.  So the questions are probably more about the best ways to integrate textual/static and animated presentation modes in the same document--or maybe not the *same* document, but within a single presentation flow or structure which we could still call a 'manual'.

best,

Matt

________________________________
From: Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net> on behalf of Maren Hachmann <maren at goos-habermann.de>
Sent: Thursday, January 4, 2018 3:13 PM
To: discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
Subject: Re: [FM Discuss] Hi folks

Hey there,

the Inkscape Beginners' Guide *is* official, as stated in my previous
message :)
Gifs (as described in that same message - maybe you didn't get it?) are
a possible solution for having at least basic usage descriptions. They
can't be very complex, but even the short animations are already very
useful. But they don't work in print (and also not (yet?) in pdf), of
course. I'm not sure if they'd play if included in a booktype html
manual (in theory, they should, but who knows if it does any image
postprocessing).

Kind Regards,
 Maren

Am 04.01.2018 um 22:04 schrieb M R:
> Mick (and all):
>
>
> That certainly makes sense.  One thing that strikes me when I consider
> the concrete examples offered so far is that so many of them are
> centered on/driven by the needs of the FM contributors themselves (like
> you guys, but also going back to the founding), rather than hypothetical
> end-users outside of a specific context like the contributors'
> own teaching/workshops or other needs.  Which is completely fine AFAIAK,
> since my own interest would be largely selfish -- I want manual-writing
> practice and portfolio samples 😊; and if anyone else can get some use
> out of my contribution, that's great too.  It does appear that the
> situation is a bit different for software like Inkscape (vs Audacity or
> Blender, or Unity, or Firefox) because Inkscape's own site appears to
> endorse the Floss manual as semi-official.  So Inkscape might be the
> perfect example of a Floss manual where end-user utility is maximized.
>
>
> At the same time, it's also interesting that Inkscape's own site, in
> their 'Learning' tab, leans heavily as well on tutorials contributed by
> individuals in the user community, many of which are in video format.
> Actually, I'm not aware of any software site (certainly in the graphics
> world), whether open-source or proprietary, that doesn't make heavy use
> of video tutorials, however rich the text documentation is.  I think
> this just speaks to a current diversity (maybe a transition -- we'll
> see) in end-user preferred learning modes.  Now, for an open-source,
> collaborative framework like Floss, I would say your other point (Mick)
> is probably decisive: the text-and-screenshot type of manual is easily
> remixed/edited/updated, which is essentially impossible in video
> tutorials (except for wholesale replacement/update by the original
> maker, which is what ends up happening in practice).   This isn't just
> about a difference in presentation technology, but about a fundamental
> difference in genre: traditional manuals, like all traditional tech
> writing, are intended to be anonymous, or neutrally voiced, such that
> any individual's contribution (given reasonable quality standards)
> should be transparent and interchangeable.  Whereas the (literal)
> narrative 'voice' of a video tutorial is not only irreducibly singular,
> personal, non-anonymous; that's also precisely what makes them
> *engaging* for people who prefer to learn that way.
>
>
> I do wonder about a future (or on-going) convergence of the two modes:
> for instance many video tutorials are quite short now, focusing on very
> specific operations in a tool (even if they're then linked into longer
> series), which makes them more useful to a broader user base.  I think
> if I were designing a text-based static manual from scratch, now--at
> least for software that featured complex GUI operations---I'd
> probably want every section to at least include curated links to such
> short vid tutorials or demonstrations (even if I had to generate some of
> these myself).  But this already violates the anonymity principle...and
> at the same time it doesn't, IMO, go nearly far enough for some of the
> software uses I imagine documenting.  Blender, for instance, is a 3D
> modeling tool that relies on such complex and finicky GUI operations
> that a series of text instructions and screenshots would, I think, be
> hopelessly inadequate to convey how to actually use it.   There's still
> absolutely a place for textual Blender documentation, but I think it's
> more in the way of a reference dictionary than a manual as such.  I even
> feel this way about Audacity.  It's orders of magnitude less
> complex-finicky in its GUI than Blender, but if I wanted to convey how
> to do any kind of multi-track sound mixing and editing in order to build
> up an interesting sound-scape (and this is another document example I'm
> actively considering), I can't imagine doing this in any way but video.
> Again, though, this may simply speak to the way I personally have been
> learning software (and on a largely hobbyist basis, at that) for the
> past decade.
>
>
> I would be very interested, anyway, to see if anyone had come up with a
> framework for anonymized, open-source video tech documentation.
> Actually you could sort of do it with a tool like Adobe Captivate, using
> their 'software demonstration' mode and maybe a text-to-voice feature.
> Ok, nevermind...
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net> on behalf of
> Mick Chesterman <M.Chesterman at mmu.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 4, 2018 2:04 AM
> *To:* discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> *Subject:* Re: [FM Discuss] Hi folks
>
> Hi there,
>
> I've got different hats on here.
> But one of my aims is to involve some of my University students in
> making manuals as a really productive learning activity.
>
> So that's another reason to lower the barriers to contributions via text
> and screenshot being the basis rather than video. And the ease of
> remixing / updating.
>
> Thanks
> Mick
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Discuss [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net] On Behalf Of
>> Maren Hachmann
>>
>
> "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read
> the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its
> website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer "
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net -
> you can unsubscribe here
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss mailing list
> Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net - you can unsubscribe here
>

_______________________________________________
Discuss mailing list
Discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
http://lists.flossmanuals.net/listinfo.cgi/discuss-flossmanuals.net - you can unsubscribe here
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20180104/9426c979/attachment-0001.html>