[Gtkradiant] Re: Q3Radiant Docs and UI

[Timothee Besset]

.. you should have sent this directly on the GtkRadiant mailing list ..

Our current status about documentation and UI:
The documentation base is at http://www.qeradiant.com/manual, and it's
rather complete already. We have the current version of the manual in
the CVS (search this list archives for CVS access information on
zerowing or see the FAQ which SpoG updated recently
http://www.qeradiant.com/faq/fom-serve/cache/116.html). The manual pages
in CVS are in doc/manual and have been updated a bit with GtkRadiant
screenshots instead of old Q3Radiant ones. But it's basically the same
thing.

Radiant UI .. basically Radiant is constrained a lot by it's codebase.
The source is messy in a lot of places and that puts some constraints on
what you can do with it UI-wise. There is also the fact that the UI
doesn't change a lot because everyone is used to the way it currently
works.

Let us know more precisely what you plan on doing..

TTimo

"Comrade.Cid theKillerRabbit" wrote:

>
>
> Thanks for mailing me about this, guys - I do appreciate it
>
> I'm on the GTK mailing list already, though I should probably clarify
> that I have no interest in releasing my own copy of either GTKrad or
> its documentation. Rather, I would like to contribute to the
> development process (which I will do via Bugzilla/other formalized
> request processes), and I would like to participate in the writing of
> the final user manuals, rather than my own propietary release.
>
> Specifically, I would like to have a very active role in documenting
> the product UI and usage. This would entail me putting together a
> model for the documentation layout, and assisting in the
> writing/editting of the manuals as they progress. Like GTKrad
> development, this would be a community effort in good faith and
> in-line with the EULA. I am willing and able to do the work, and would
> rather the job be done properly, than see it remain incomplete and
> out-of-date, as sometimes occured with Q3rad (the documentation,
> although excellent, hasn't been officially updated since build 192).
>
> In that vein, should I proceed with the preliminary documentation
> model?
>
> thanks -Cid
>