I like this idea. However - documentation is time consuming and takes a good writer to be useful. It's also a difficult task given how fast Media Center is updated.
No doubt about it, but that's why I introduced the word "commit". It may very well take a significant
financial commitment, whether that is one dedicated professional or spread among subject experts. A wiki may not even be the optimum format, a major TBD. It pains me to suggest documentation at the cost of development, but if that's what it takes, well I have come around to that viewpoint after many many hours invested in learning this program.
MC has forever been on a face-paced development run while too often relegating internal documentation to second (or third, or fourth, or voluntary) fiddle. There are certainly many well-done high points in the wiki (I have a large 3-ring binder full of them, as well as valuable forum posts), but also many holes. One might hope the ROI for JRiver would be significant in terms of increasing customer base, leading in the long run to a better, more popular and satisfying product with substantially reduced learning curve.
Note my OP was originally posted in response to Matt's thread seeking ideas for MC Image handling development. That seems like a renewed thrust area, with a special opportunity to update documentation as it grows, potentially leading to a new expanded user community. One could imagine a whole book(let?) just for image handling.
OK, I'll step off the soapbox now and go out to do some gardening.
