didn't have much to do with what I was trying to do - not that I could tell anyway.
If that happens again with a response to a question you post please speak up. That will help everyone (if someone inadvertently steered you wrong they can learn from that) and it is a small courtesy to whoever tried to help you. It is also practical: if you don't think a recommendation has much to do with your question, well, double-check that. If someone suggests a resource, take a close look and ask again if you don't see what they mean. For example, "Thanks for the link but I don't see what surfaces have to do with my task with images." A reply might have been, "The same commands apply to surfaces and images because they are both rasters see [link]. The example shows step by step how to do what you want. Just use your image where the example uses a surface. " The way tjhb explained it made the whole thing pretty easy. Maybe he/she should be paid to update the user manual so its a bit more user friendly
I agree with that. My post was intended to discuss two different styles of documenting complex software, with both styles having pluses and minuses, and to convey Manifold had come down on the side of 1,2,3 style. Your comment above illustrates how the 1,2,3 text wizard approach really can make things easy, especially when you have one of the smartest guys around, and a gifted writer as well, write for you acustom wizard specifically tailored to your needs. It will never get easier than that. But the 1,2,3 method only works well when it is a close match to what people want to do and to their skill levels. Otherwise it is confusing for some people, even if the 1,2,3 steps are as well-written as Tim's. An example: Tim writes "1. Create a map using the image. Add the drawing containing property area(s) to the map." Some people who are not as diligent as you won't know how to "create a map using the image" because, unlike you, they don't have any idea how a map and an image are different. They'll be mad at the user-unfriendliness of this step, really angry after poking away at menu buttons trying to do step 1. They'll write to Manifold asking "How do I create a Google Map from my image? I don't see any place on the Google site to upload an image." or "I printed the image to make a map but now how do I use that paper in step 2?" Or they'll write, "What areas? My map has lines." And that's just step 1. :-) You may think I'm kidding but that's really what happens. For that reason, as useful as 1,2,3 text wizards can be as guides and in examples they have serious limits. At some point it becomes easier to write a general purpose introduction that teaches people how to use the stuff in a general way and then allow them to use their knowledge to confidently string together whatever it is they want to do in whatever custom way fits the bill for a particular person and situation, as Tim did for you. I fully agree that approach requires more up-front investment in time. With some packages unless you invest days or weeks of intensive study at first you don't get the background knowledge you'll need even if later on you are willing to spend hours diving into various topics in the manual as need be. I am not in any way slamming you for your views. As I noted there is a particularly strong Text Wizard contingent within Manifold that knows the above pluses and minuses perfectly well and based on the balance strongly advocates the 123 approach to be done first with general knowledge explication done second, if possible. I support that approach as well, albeit not as strongly as some.
|