A Public Site (1 Viewer)

[devo]

Just a few comments ....purely my opinion from my experiences.

my first thought was to work on the existing wiki. but the generic wiki system has a few disadavtages in my opinion.

we are also using a wiki software (wikiwig) but its much more userfriendly.
features like:
x file/image handling (uploading)
x online creation of folders and files
x wysiwyg editor
makes writing the documentation as easy as using Word.
thats why i have started this new project with the target to get a online doc and publish offline versions of it with every MediaPortal release.

File imaging handling is good but I don't see the necessity of the WYSIWYG editor in a wiki. The syntax is made to be so easy that you don't need an editor. If I want a rich editor I would use word.

yes, everyone can view the new documentation at http://manual.elite-squad.net
i have restricted the permission to edit the pages because i dont want that a "funny" person deletes our hard work. :evil:

I would open it up to everyone ....if you want people to contribute don't make them do more work then they have to. Wiki is about collaboration. Emailing , waiting for an account etc hampers the growth.

If someone deletes or changes somethign you don't want you can simply restore it ....best thing about wiki!!! The biggest wikis work this way. I can go change anything I want without needing to sign up etc etc.

our target is to write a documentation with the layout of a manual like you know it from many programs and devices.

for me its much easier to find informations in a manula that using a wiki. but thats just me.

Don't try to make wiki what it isn't ....if you want to make an offline manual use word. If you want to make an online manual that is up to date and easy to change then use wiki. Maybe it can be exported to word or pdf.

If the Wiki has a search or index I find it easy to find what I need.

I have found this good comparison of many wikis (there are so many)
http://wiki.splitbrain.org/wiki:compare

So again, just my opinions. keep up the good work.

 

[infinite.loop]

if you want to make an offline manual use word. If you want to make an online manual that is up to date and easy to change then use wiki. Maybe it can be exported to word or pdf.

i have been thinking about this points before i have started this project.

but how should 8 people work on one word document?
i will create offline versions of the documentation for every Media Portal release. copy and paste, thats no big deal

wikiwig is the only serverbased software that allows multiple users to write a manual online like writing it with word.

i have tried 48 programms (and nearly all wikis that are available for free). wikiwig was the only one that could to the job.

there are wikis that can export their content as word or pdf, bu the result is not satisfying. ( i have tried it)

with a clear structure and a index page you dont need a search function.
when you read the manual of your DVD-Player/Recorder you will never miss a search function. (btw. a search function will be added in a further version of wikiwig)

 

[devo]

if you want to make an offline manual use word. If you want to make an online manual that is up to date and easy to change then use wiki. Maybe it can be exported to word or pdf.

how should 8 people work on one word document?

My point exactly ..its hard unless your using sharepoint services or something. Wiki is better online.

wikiwig is the only serverbased software that allows multiple users to write a manual online like writing it with word.

It looks neat...but if i want word functionality I would use word.

Wiki syntax is great I think. Mediawiki has a neat concept ..a bit of both wysiwyg and wiki. Kinda looks what wikiwig is trying to do.

i have tried 48 programms (and nearly all wikis that are available for free). wikiwig was the only one that could to the job.

There are so many I found it hard to compare most of them. I don't doubt wikiwig can do the job.

there are wikis that can export their content as word or pdf, bu the result is not satisfying. ( i have tried it)

I imagine they wouldn't do a good job. Wiki is meant to be online.

with a clear structure and a index page you dont need a search function.
when you read the manual of your DVD-Player/Recorder you will never miss a search function. (btw. a search function will be added in a further version of wikiwig)

A search function is very handy ....in any application. Think of the fourms without a search.

Any wiki is better than none

 

[infinite.loop]

There are so many I found it hard to compare most of them.

finding the right software provided me 2 days full of pain and backstrokes.

my target was to find a serverbased solution where everyone who is able to use the Windows Explorer and Word can add new contend.

i thought it woulndt be good to use a software that requires the writers to learn a special syntax and upload tools to get new content online.

you have allready noticed that i realy like wikiwig. i know its not perfect but it was the best choice in my opinion.

But how do the Authors of our Documentation think about wikiwig?
Bigal, mzemina, Mr.Mitchell, wortelsoft, mathmos ?

 

[mzemina]

...But how do the Authors of our Documentation think about wikiwig?
Bigal, mzemina, Mr.Mitchell, wortelsoft, mathmos ?

It works fine. It is just a little slow during the save process, takes about 10-15 seconds at times to say it is saving. At this point I am doing simple grammar and spelling checking plus simple indenting to make the existing pages look ok. Nothing that would stress wikiwig. After the content looks good I may start looking to create some tables to clean up the format even more but I want the text to read well before tackling that stage.

Later I want to use a table layout to give a better snapshot view of some of the plugins (actual gif screen shot) and text description that would be associated with it. Hopefully that should help users to better understand some of the plugins even better.

Mike

 

[mathmos]

"]

...But how do the Authors of our Documentation think about wikiwig?
Bigal, mzemina, Mr.Mitchell, wortelsoft, mathmos ?

Hi for my opinion ist not the tool importend. The main reason for me and i think for all is to write a documentation to provide the users with practical, real-world information about the use and design of Media Portal.

When everybody help we get a killer documentation about MP. Where you can read all, and don´t open threads in the forum like "i need help.....by"

my2cent
mathmos

 

[devo]

"]

...But how do the Authors of our Documentation think about wikiwig?
Bigal, mzemina, Mr.Mitchell, wortelsoft, mathmos ?

Hi for my opinion ist not the tool importend. The main reason for me and i think for all is to write a documentation to provide the users with practical, real-world information about the use and design of Media Portal.

When everybody help we get a killer documentation about MP. Where you can read all, and don´t open threads in the forum like "i need help.....by"

my2cent
mathmos

Well said & I agree. We need to decide on a tool and run with it. Right now we have two

edit:

LordMessi said that the MP team was discussiing this as well so Im not sure we should make a decision till we here what is happening.

 

[Frodo]

Lordmessi is working on a complete new website which will
all information we need
things we think about
- news
- downloads
- user zone where users can upload/download own made skins/plugins
- blogs
- documentation wiki
etc etc