[Scribus] Scribus Manual

[James Gilmore]

> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 30 Oct 2007 08:18:25 +1100
> From: Roger <hovergo at net-tech.com.au>
> Subject: [Scribus] Scribus Manual
> To: scribus at nashi.altmuehlnet.de
> Message-ID: <47264E21.4000007 at net-tech.com.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Hi all
> Thanks for the Introductory page, it has great merit.
>
> At risk of starting another discussion thread, may I suggest that a focus
for
> our Manual be more on the screen shots with text explanation kept to a
minimum.
> A lot of wordage, I find, detracts from the help that a Manual can provide
and
> may  generally be understood differently by a variety of readers whereas
images
> are universal, for instance, a workshop manual for assembly of a car
engine, few
> words but great work flow images.
>
> Personally, I learn most,  from text that accompanies images, like:
> " To do nnnnnnn , Click here",
> " To alter bbbbbb " Do that",
> " If you have problem doing xxxxx  then you are probably doing
yyyyyy  ------ ,
> this is how to correct it".
> Seldom does a manual provide explanation of : 'if it's wrong then this is
what
> happened and this is how to fix it'
>
> I think that most coming to Scribus already have some experience with
computers
> and have experienced disastrous layout problems associated with msword so
they
> will be looking for similar (familiar) icons and associated explanations
on the
> Scribus Desktop.
>
> Roger
>

Don't just assume that people wanting to use scribus have relevant
experience, or it will end up as a self-fulfilling prophecy--no one but the
most tech-savvy will give it a thought. I suspect the lack of a definitive
manual has been the single greatest obstacle for the vast majority of
potential users. They may chalk it up to this or that, but in the end, they
were looking for a tool to do (x), and they couldn't tell if Scribus could
do (x) or not, and didn't know how to find out. That's just my suspicion,
though. I could be off base on that. Plus, tech-savvy is relative. Some
people know how to use a computer fairly well, but I still wouldn't consider
"tech savvy;" others I'd say their fingers should never sit on a keyboard.
There's hope for the first group ;)

Balance is the key, when it comes to illustrations. I'm digging though my
bookshelf full of technical books, and the balance seems to be 2/3 text and
1/3 illustrations. Now, that's even for graphic programs like Maya. The
books that lean toward 1/2 text are the ones I generally consider to have
been a waste of money. The ones that lean toward 3/4 text I generally
consider arcane and use more for reference. So that should be the target:
2/3 text, 1/3 illustration.  To be more precise, shoot for the golden
ratio<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_ratio>.
When it comes to nearly anything in design, it revolves around that ratio.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://nashi.altmuehlnet.de/pipermail/scribus/attachments/20071030/cd4ea5b1/attachment.html