[wiki] Referencing to Figures

saccade · 2009-01-21 18:01:27

@Reduction of maintenance efforts by separation of content and presentation.

My proposal of separating content and presentation in the use of pointer images makes it simple to maintain ~~something~~ the pointers – even across pages if done carefully.

To understand exactly what I mean you simply have to leave an understanding of “image( reference)s”, which is based on a mix of content and presentation.
See the link [[Image:pointer-somewhere.png|AlternateText]] not as a picture of something, but instead of placing a content-element named “pointer-somewhere.png”.
What this element refers to is defined by its name. By which means this reference is presented, is quite another thing, it may be a symbol or a number. You can place more than one occurence of this content-element, if you like and if needed.
Its presentation (the image inside) simply has to match the presentational means, that is used in the figure. If those change, you simply change the presentational part of the content element the same way.
This change will be done once in the content-element (by simply uploading a new image to the content-element – ! – “pointer-somewhere.png”).

This way all places, where the content-element “pointer-somewhere.png” has been used, will be automatically updated. You even don’t need to know, where you have placed them.
This might mean a shift of actual images (already present as specimens) assigned to content-elements = image-names. But that is not too much trouble.

An initial complete figure (which easily could be provided at a reduced size) even might help to see if additional pointers are really needed and which way they are used best. If you have to add something you only have to work on this figure, rearrange numbers, and can then simply read which new=changed presentational images have to be uploaded to the pointer-images. The other figures are for the most part simply crops of the initial one.

To compare it with your system:
If any information block has to be inserted with a new figure, then all figure references (Captions) and all figure pointers within text have to be searched and changed manually. And this all in a manner that you don’t get confused. Those text-references to figures are in itself a mix of content and presentation.

Saying this last point of course I have to admit, that I too won’t completely leave out textual references to figures, of course not – but I would use them in a reduced manner, only if they’re really needed. They aren’t if the figure is in the same paragraph or under the same heading.

Last edited by saccade (2009-01-21 18:13:52)

saccade · 2009-01-21 18:03:10

@Adding a clearly distinct and well thought visual layer of information.

What I’m after is an information concept, which uses both ways of textual explanation and of visual orientation in a sophisticated and separate way.
The visual approach is not mere pictureing, but to add a way of thinking/perception/orientation which runs parallel in the mind.

And here I have in mind what you locate at another place: position and layout. My visual approach keeps the main position/layout-lines of the panels. This kind of information is lost, when you crop down to single widgets. If done so a user cannot locate easily where the widget he looks for is explained.

Simply add a picture of a thing besides the explanation might be useless, because if you already are there, you had the thing in view already in your mind. What I think is, that the visual part has it’s own tasks and functions or adds another apporach to the same matter that is otherwise presented by means of text.
This point leads to the 4th improvement:

saccade · 2009-01-21 18:04:45

@Working out an intuitive system of overview.

Already said in part above:
I have in mind, that my proposed visual layer provides the orientation aspect of information and explanation. Simply by providing overview. I try to keep the layout and positional structure of the panels, keep things together, so that a reader easily can see where he/she is, where he came from, and where he has to go in his administration workflow.

Simply cropping down figures and thus subdueing them to textual order will throw out this kind of overview.

EDIT: This essentially has to do with what I started in the terms -thread: Getting a coherent, well differentiated/diversified and reasonable/plausible “system of concept(s)” which can be communicated easily and which will lead (new) administrators in a way they can later communicate to their clients.
The better the “leitmotif“s are (in German “Roter Faden”) the better explanations will work.
Breaking it down to the single elementary “objects” may of course be easy in technical thinking, but definitely not in communicating the “look and feel” and “approach” of a tool.
Thus I disagree with what you say here:

In comparison, I don’t agree with using images like shown here that group several widgets together.

For someone who already has the applying concepts in mind and is adapted to CMS and the overall working with such tools, of course this would not be needed. Then such a user would only need a “reference” book, listing all the widgets one by one (best with an alphabetic index of them) and explaining their use. What you propose seems to be more of the style “Reference book” for advanced admins. Of course this would be a fine thing too, I don’t disagree with the obliging idea of its stringent and easy to maintain concept.
But this kind of explanation almost always fails to teach concepts, strategy, basic skills of doing things in an optimized way, and what I call “Roter Faden” (obviously “leitmotif” in english). It won’t teach the approach of Textpattern.
My idea is to follow the well thought (and at any rate “present”) groupings of widgets – as the developers made them with good reasons, and basically teach their essential concept as well. I could also say: The grouping of widgets is a content of itself – we’ll loose that if we break it into pieces.

Of course you may do so without any figures simply by headings and text/paragraphs – but why not show a coherence if it is already presented in a visual way in the original?

Last edited by saccade (2009-01-22 06:30:17)

saccade · 2009-01-21 18:11:01

So far.
I didn’t quote the parts I’m answering to (would be a lot of work and would make the post much longer) but I think it is clear enough (at least I hope so).

Let me say:
Of course it would be much simpler not to discuss this whole thing and only leave it to improving the texts – but I think there is a benefit, that shouldn’t be left out.

It seems you’re hard to convince, but I hope I can make clear that it’s not an irrelevant thing I’m after.

(And maybe you have to know the following:
In the first place – in the major half of my existence – I’m a lutheran pastor.
So nails and a bunch of thesis are always handy,
translation (appropriate communication for all) is an affair of my heart,
and I won’t miss a good debate/discussion how to do best,
as well as a good beer,
but I’ll repent gladly if I did something wrong. ;-)

So please be patient with my insisting on keeping a visual approach. I hope I showed, that I can follow and integrate much of the concerns against it.)

Last edited by saccade (2009-01-21 21:27:23)

Destry · 2009-01-23 09:32:19

Hi Saccade,

First, I hope you realize (if at least by the smiley) that when I said “thesis,” it was just some friendly fun.

Second, as I’ve mentioned before, your time and thinking on it all is greatly appreciated. The fact you present your thoughts in a methodical way is evidence to your good intentions. Whether or not we agree on every point is irrelevant. Discussing both sides of an issue to get to a solution is good and welcome.

Third, if your aim turns into a must convince Destry campaign (as gleaned from your last post there), then we are not going to get anywhere. :)

My position (oft said before) is not to instill my will in everything TextBook. My contributions are offered with consideration to wiki users, like anyone’s contributions should be, namely : 1) site admins new to Txp (docs), and 2) people in this community that maintain the wiki (admins/authors). That’s not saying you are not thinking of these audiences, I’m just making it clear what my position is.

I’ll respond to your four points separately to keep it sane. Like I mentioned before, I’m doing several things (and my son just came down with the flu) so be patient as I get to to each one.

(Of course anyone else is welcome — and expected — to add their two cents.)

saccade · 2009-01-23 10:31:32

Hi Destry,

yes of course I realized the fun and my reply as you can see from the last infos good to know (true by the way) I meant my thesis defence no less friendly fun. I think a debate in communication strategy must be a fun thing.

Please don’t think it’s a campaign. It’s just that I appreciate your work and your stringent keeping tracks very much – and think working together is much more fun and much more effective if you (with “you” now I mean every participant, you me and whoever works together) agree on a (thinking- or designing-) concept – even if you won’t do it exactly the same way in your own realm. I even didn’t intentionally concentrate on you , for I described my thoughts to have a good discussion of ways in the community. At least you’re one of the godfathers of Textpattern/TextBook (which I appreciate highly), so I’d like much to be in harmony with your concepts. This is the reason, why “convincing” would mean: My thoughts have gone through a good fire, that burnt down clutter (in each aspect) and left a valuable thing for making the most effective and splendid documentation – and got your “OK”. :-)

An example: Just when you posted the last post, I was working on another point you were concerned: (and I too have to do it between other tasks with higher priority – but decided to try and hopefully finish a thing before it get’s lost in life again as many others)

You said, the red color bullets are “distracting”. That I won’t dismiss easily but take as a serious thing to solve:

OK, I did take it over as a heritage from what I saw on the pages before. And – as an excuse – I’m quite customed to red rubrication :-) – that’s clearly personal. Also it’s the color which isn’t used elsewhere, so it seems to me a appropriate choice.

But you’re right: It is somehow aggressive, it may distract if you get an alarmed feeling with those red points (though I think most readers will soon blend it out in their perception if they don’t use the visual layer).
So I think this is a good critique offering to me to make the visual layer better:

And it gives me another task: Red is distracting – so smite the “dis” – but keep the tracting.

Unfortunately I’m not that fast and first have to make the images, but I will come up with another version.

So your words are highly appreciated, if possible an “OK, (let’s) go that direction” would be very welcome if there is a concept we agree on, but there is no “must convince”.

And of course anyone else is welcome. I would like to hear if this or that part of my thoughts (and images) seems reasonable to others and which thing will have the most support and benefit.

(Edit: New thing moved to a new topic)

(And I hope your son will be well again soon! There are much more important things than design debates – discussion can of course wait.)

Last edited by saccade (2009-01-24 22:03:35)

Destry · 2009-01-23 16:04:13

saccade wrote:

The question if TextBook is a reference, manual or where which of them.

I don’t know what “where which of them” means, but the question is a good one nevertheless. However, I think it should be its own topic thread or it will be buried or hard to follow here where there’s already some meaty dialog taking place.

I recommend starting that thread and then we delete these two posts here. I’ll then reply in that new thread.

Response to image, Point 1 arguments coming up…

Last edited by Destry (2009-01-23 16:04:43)

saccade · 2009-01-29 22:16:41

On “Smite the ‘dis’ and keep the trac(k/t)ing”: ;-)
See now

(Has been a hard week, so new visual approach specimen took a long time.)

Here what I can imagine even better than red rubrication:
More Textpatternish, and I think the same way helpful – but much lesser distraction.

I also tried green but that didn’t apply as good (need to try more different color variations yet).

If you want to see it “live” try this

Last edited by saccade (2009-01-29 22:23:10)

Destry · 2009-01-30 00:21:12

I’m still intending to reply. Promise. Just crazy busy. Response is mostly written, in fact. Just have to finish.

saccade · 2009-01-30 06:28:23

Hi Destry. Absolutely no need to hurry. I don’t want to put pressure on anyone, just do/finish what I promised.

And still: Anyone else with comments on it?
Apart from the question if this approach is adopted/applicable for TextBook, I’d like to know if it is effective/useful for txp-Documentation at all.

Destry · 2009-01-30 13:59:48

saccade wrote:

I’d like to know if it is effective/useful for txp-Documentation at all.

Effective and useful? Yes. The only solution? No. The best solution? Mmmm…no, from my view.

Your ideas are certainly plausible, and again, they are not too different from the general approach I/we used originally, but my position now is not what is just “effective,” but what is damn hard to beat, all things considering. And thos considerations include being effective and usable, sure, but also elimination of admin/author overhead and keeping to conventions to what readers already know and expect.

When we talk about putting graphics inline as markers to topics addressed in large images with many topics, then I think we’ve crossed the line of reducing admin/authoring overhead for the sake of a perceived increase in reader usability; an increase in usability that’s probably not significant enough to warrant the graphic overhead to begin with. (Let’s not forget that wiki pages are printed too, and graphics just make for more overhead there as well.)

But I’m getting carried away…stand by for the response to your first point earlier on. :)

saccade · 2009-01-30 14:13:23

Without touching any other point – just for the pure aesthetices/color/effect feeling:
What looks and feels better – “red” or dark “cheese”?
Is it a step in the right or a better direction (also: without any judgement/decision on any other point)?
Or isn’t it?

Textpattern CMS

Textpattern CMS support forum

#13 2009-01-21 18:01:27

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#14 2009-01-21 18:03:10

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#15 2009-01-21 18:04:45

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#16 2009-01-21 18:11:01

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#17 2009-01-23 09:32:19

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#18 2009-01-23 10:31:32

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#19 2009-01-23 16:04:13

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#20 2009-01-29 22:16:41

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#21 2009-01-30 00:21:12

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#22 2009-01-30 06:28:23

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#23 2009-01-30 13:59:48

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

#24 2009-01-30 14:13:23

Re: [wiki] Referencing to Figures

Board footer