[FM Discuss] next steps on Audacity book

[mick at flossmanuals.net]

This sounds great!


On 10/01/18 12:52, M R wrote:
>
> Hi Mick:
>
>
> I agree that what's important to the end user is feature and function,
> not version/release number as such.  Certainly incremental releases
> (like the difference between 2.2.1 and 2.2.2) don't typically merit an
> update to the documentation.  But here we're talking essentially about
> the delta between an initial stable release (1.1) and a release some
> years later (2.x);  and having nearly completed the revision I can say
> that about 40% of the functionality is new altogether, and much of the
> rest has new GUI look/feel and arrangement, and/or is found in a new
> place in the main menu system than in the first release.  When and if
> the time comes, we'll see what the delta is between 2.x and 3.x; but
> I'm guessing a new revision of the FM would be appropriate then too. 
>  Meanwhile users of the newly-revised book will at least know they are
> dealing with the Audacity feature-set as of late 2017.
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net> on behalf of
> Mick Chesterman <M.Chesterman at mmu.ac.uk>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 10, 2018 2:26 AM
> *To:* discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> *Subject:* Re: [FM Discuss] next steps on Audacity book
>  
>
> Hi there,
>
>  
>
> Regarding not including version numbers.
>
> It’s not a strong opinion but it’s based on some software which
> changes version a lot but not necessarily function.
>
> In that case it can mean the process of patching up docs and just
> making small changes where there is new functionality is harder, or
> may appear harder as an editor may think they need to update the whole
> manual which might be too big a job for them to take on, or at least
> to finish.
>
> In any case I would trust your judgement on this for the Audacity
> manuals. //
>
>  
>
> Thx
>
> Mick
>
> *From:*Discuss [mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net] *On
> Behalf Of *M R
> *Sent:* 08 January 2018 06:19
> *To:* discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> *Subject:* Re: [FM Discuss] next steps on Audacity book
>
>  
>
> Mick:
>
>  
>
> Ok, this is well underway, though it's going to take some time as
> there is fairly major delta between Audacity 1.x and 2.2, with a great
> deal of feature rearranging and many outright new features, which I'm
> having to spin up on through a mix of experimentation and appeal to
> the audacity org documentation.  But it's exactly the sort of practice
> I wanted, and I need it now so the rewrite will move ahead with all
> deliberate speed.  I haven't tackled the tutorials part yet, and can't
> swear that I'll keep the original tasks exactly as they were, but
> all the basic chapter subjects will certainly be preserved.  
>
>  
>
> Btw, I'm not completely sold on the idea of eliminating all references
> to release/version numbers, which currently appear at the start of
> each chapter and a few other places.   If someone tried to use the
> current manual and didn't realize it was years out of date, they'd be
> lost in some fairly important ways.  Clearly the need for this kind of
> update is burdensome, and I wouldn't advocate it in the Floss context
> for more than maybe first-order versions (ie 1.x vs 2.x), but I'm not
> seeing any good purpose to burying the delta itself.   Can you share
> your thinking on this?
>
>  
>
> best,
>
>  
>
> Matt
>
>  
>
>    
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net>> on behalf of Mick
> Chesterman <M.Chesterman at mmu.ac.uk <mailto:M.Chesterman at mmu.ac.uk>>
> *Sent:* Sunday, January 7, 2018 1:35 AM
> *To:* discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> <mailto:discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [FM Discuss] next steps on Audacity book
>
>  
>
> Hi Matt,
>
>  
>
> That sounds good,
>
>  
>
> Unfortunately as I migrated 95% of the books in from the last system,
> I'm down as the owner for all of those. 
>
>  
>
> I would say that where possible it would be good to take out
> references to software version numbers when we come across them. 
>
>  
>
> Thanks
>
> Mick
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net>> on behalf of M R
> <matrobnew at hotmail.com <mailto:matrobnew at hotmail.com>>
> *Sent:* 06 January 2018 01:11
> *To:* discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> <mailto:discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net>
> *Subject:* Re: [FM Discuss] next steps on Audacity book
>
>  
>
> Actually I see it was Ryan who started the substantive updating in
> June, so I guess my question below is addressed to Ryan (hi Ryan) as
> much as Mick. 
>
>  
>
> Matt 
>
>  
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> *From:*Discuss <discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net
> <mailto:discuss-bounces at lists.flossmanuals.net>> on behalf of M R
> <matrobnew at hotmail.com <mailto:matrobnew at hotmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Friday, January 5, 2018 6:09 PM
> *To:* discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net
> <mailto:discuss at lists.flossmanuals.net>
> *Subject:* [FM Discuss] next steps on Audacity book
>
>  
>
> Hi Mick:
>
>  
>
> One of your many hats here seems to be owner of the Audacity book.  In
> that capacity, I wonder what you'd like to see done next with that
> book as it currently stands.  It looks like back in June of last year
> you did some preliminary work to acknowledge the then-current version
> 2.1.3 (we're now at 2.2.1), but as far as I can tell most of the
> extant screenshots and feature discussions throughout the book (other
> than the installation stuff you worked on) still refer to 1.x.  So
> would it be useful for me to just start working chapter by chapter to
> update screenshots and (where necessary) feature discussions to
> 2.2.x?  I wouldn't be doing anything other than updating within the
> existing framework, and no fancy innovations like screen vids 😊 Just
> addressing the delta from 1.x.  What do you think?
>
>  
>
> Matt
>
> "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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.flossmanuals.net/pipermail/discuss-flossmanuals.net/attachments/20180110/b0494139/attachment-0001.html>