Re: about coders, docs and users
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 09:13:36AM EDT, Rado S wrote:
> =- cga2000 wrote on Sun 20.Aug'06 at 7:33:55 -0400 -=
>
> > The reason I jumped in on this thread was that as a
> > comparatively new user, I thought that my personal feelings
> > reagarding mutt might be of some interest to the community.
>
> Yes, they are, because you're an example of the majority of users.
.. and I should have added ..
this being the only area where I might humbly hope to contribute ..
> The "pros" are a minority.
I'm not sure what _you_ mean by "the pros" .. but I have a feeling that
what separates the men from the boys is having the *nix fibre.
Even if they are new to mutt those that have mastered this "culture"
will instinctively make the best of mutt's capabilities in a relatively
short time and will be content with the current "manual".
One possible failing of the current manual where outsiders are
concerned is that it was written by UNIX guys for UNIX guys.
> This is what I meant with "voiced critical mass":
> speak up, people! :)
>
> > Generally speaking, there is probably a fairly large number of
> > domains of activity that could be discussed from a user
> > standpoint -- as opposed to the current mutt manual's approach
> > where the accent is mostly on individual functionalities.
>
> Even though generally I agree, there are 2 already mentioned
> problems with this:
>
> - The "lazyness" on boths sides, the newbs and
> the pros, to work on this for even a 3rd group not
> involved: the next generation of newbs.
>
> - What kind of activities are on the minds of newsers (=> YOURS)?
> "pros" who'd have to document it are out of touch, so both
> need to come together.
> There are far too many variations to document all of them.
>
> See MuttGuide on wiki, add YOUR ideas to UserGuide.
> See also my agenda on RadoS: the MuttFaq shows what people
> miss and therefore needs better coverage in a guide.
>
> This is what people don't care enough about: next gen newbs.
> And therefore things don't get moving in this area.
> How to make _both_ sides care for the 3rd?
>
> > The "User Guide" I had in mind would probably end up containing
> > most of the information in the current manual but presented from
> > a completely different standpoint.
> > {...}
> > _using_ mutt to its full potential {...} difficult because {...}
> > [use] efficiently .. you don't have a clear picture where you're
> > headed.
>
> ... because you don't know how to _combine_ all of mutt's
> flexibility and individual powers to your desires.
>
> > It's no longer just a question of getting something in mutt to work.
> > It's a matter of getting mutt to work for you.
> > {...} I would be a much better (and contented) mutt-er if only I
> > could peek over the shoulder of a few experienced users for a
> > couple of hours.
>
> This is what I aimed for with the MuttGuide and ConfigTricks.
> This is what the packaged docs should include, too:
> the accumulated experience of advanced users who already found
> the ways to use it best.
>
> We two (and some others like Rocco) agree on this.
>
> However, I want even more than that, see "change varnames" request
> (here and additional threads on mutt-dev). The helpfulness of this
> might not apply to you, but it does for many others.
> If I work on docs for a release, then I'm not going to do
> patchwork, I want to make it right altogether, because the parts
> must fit to each other.
>
> > Oh.. Naturally, my intent was _not_ to flame mutt _or_ complain
> > about inadequate documentation.
>
> Maybe not yours, but mine, not being a newbie myself anymore and
> experiencing on the support front (here and #mutt) what/ why it
> fails. Again, just how to convince mutt-dev?
>
> --
> © Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
> Even if it seems insignificant, in fact EVERY effort counts
> for a shared task, at least to show your deserving attitude.