Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[crisnee]

I've put several parts of the Wiki User's manual into printable format using Open Office (Can also convert to Word).

1. View Schemes about 12 pages
2. Smartlist and Search - Rules and Modifiers about 7 pages
3. Expressions related about 12 pages

They're not pretty, but they are readable. They're the segments of the Wiki that I most want at hand and available to study at will. If anyone else feels the same, respond to this post and we'll figure out where to upload it, make it available, or some way to get it to you.
-Chris

[fitbrit]

Thanks for the effort; I'd definitely be interested!

[grandlulu]

Good idea but where is the file?

[jack wallstreet]

I think this is a good idea also, even though it will get out of date.; I have great difficulty finding what I want in the WIKI.  It has been generally disappointing. (I don't really know if the information I am looking for it there or not.  The "search" has not been effective for me.

If I were a "new user," the difficulty of using the WIKI might be a bit problematic to me.

[JimH]

I have great difficulty finding what I want in the WIKI.  It has been generally disappointing. (I don't really know if the information I am looking for it there or not.  The "search" has not been effective for me.

If I were a "new user," the difficulty of using the WIKI might be a bit problematic to me.

This is a good place to start in the wiki:
http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php/Category:Frequently_Asked_Questions

Search is unfortunately case sensitive.

[crisnee]

For now, if you want a copy, email me and I'll send it/them out. If there's a lot of interest, I'll set up my Dropbox account so that anyone interested can download when they like.

In your emails let me know if you can use Open Office format, or if you need the files converted to Rich Text, or Word. I haven't converted them yet, but the formatting should hold as it's fairly straight forward.

-Chris

[crisnee]

I think this is a good idea also, even though it will get out of date.; I have great difficulty finding what I want in the WIKI.  It has been generally disappointing. (I don't really know if the information I am looking for it there or not.  The "search" has not been effective for me.

If I were a "new user," the difficulty of using the WIKI might be a bit problematic to me.

I was surprised (and dismayed) that a $50 program didn't come with, at the very least, a downloadable printable manual. It never occurred to me that this would be the case. I've been in the computer business for a long time but have not run across this for any for pay program.

It's true that parts of the manual would go out of date, but many of the complicated sections would not. Besides, once you have a good basic comprehensive manual, it's easy enough just to make addenda, especially if you put out the manual in an editable format. Anyone that's so inclined could then change the original, or tack on the addenda. Their choice.

For me, it's much easier to comprehend complex topics and setup projects when I can read them away from the computer, think about them, how I might use whatever, and then go back to the computer with a plan.

-Chris

[crisnee]

I have great difficulty finding what I want in the WIKI.  It has been generally disappointing. (I don't really know if the information I am looking for it there or not.  The "search" has not been effective for me.

If I were a "new user," the difficulty of using the WIKI might be a bit problematic to me.

One of the really annoying things about the Wiki; great sounding links with nothing behind them.

Website building 101, NO UNDER CONSTRUCTION PAGES; If you ain't got it, don't pretend to flaunt it. And if you must show your good intentions do so without making us click to find out.

The FAQ page would be better, in my opinion, if it was the old fashioned all on one page type. That way you could browse through all the topics and wouldn't have to go through the endless clicks, and the concomitant disappointments (but you could still click if you dared--or new what you were getting).

-Chris

[JimH]

Website building 101, NO UNDER CONSTRUCTION PAGES

Thanks for the tutorial.  Where do you see an "under construction" page?

One of the really annoying things about the Wiki; great sounding links with nothing behind them.

Website building 101, NO UNDER CONSTRUCTION PAGES; If you ain't got it, don't pretend to flaunt it. And if you must show your good intentions do so without making us click to find out.

One of the great things about the wiki is that anyone can edit it.  If you think it's lacking in some way, you can contribute your thoughts.

[Alex B]

I think my past replies are still valid:

MC12 was the last version that actually had an internal help/manual included (a chm help file)

I can understand why it wasn't an optimal and why the online manual in the wiki replaced it. The help file was always out-of-date because the program evolved constantly and JRiver didn't have the resources to create a new version of the manual weekly or so.

I am not saying that the wiki pages are up-to-date as they are now, but they can be easily edited and bettered in small chunks so they have a better chance to become the definitive source of information.

I uploaded the MC12 help file here: http://rs260.rapidshare.com/files/240837099/Media_Center_Help.chm (1.16 MB)

It might be a good read even though a lot has changed since it was last edited.

EDIT

Perhaps the JRiver guys could create a downloadable version of the JRiver Wiki by following the instructions here: http://users.softlab.ece.ntua.gr/~ttsiod/buildWikipediaOffline.html.

They could run a script weekly so that it would always be a recent version.

Apparently the MediaWiki software has some useful extensions:

http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Collection

-- can create a collection of pages and export it in pdf format. It can be used by anyone. JimH could maintain a copy that contains the full wiki (and provide a link) and users could create personalized collections. It is easy to use. An example can be found here: http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Special:Collection

There's also this: http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Pdf_Book
-- the name looks promising, but I don't know how it works (yet?).

The old help file is still available in the above link and of course also in the MC12 installer.


JimH,

Could you have a look at the links I posted? I think it would not be too difficult to create a downloadable version.

[JimH]

The old help file is still available in the above link and of course also in the MC12 installer.

JimH,

Could you have a look at the links I posted? I think it would not be too difficult to create a downloadable version.

It's a reasonable request, but I think the Wiki works well enough.  We don't plan to make any changes.

Online docs are the future, in my opinion.

[crisnee]

On-line docs are the future, in my opinion.

I think on-line docs are fine, even very fine--sick of "great." But, they should be downloadable. Not everyone can look at computer screens for hours at a time. My eyes for one are not suited to it--age and an accident has taken a toll, even though computers is my job, (maybe that's why). Plus ebooks can display pdfs and word formatted docs. I have a Kindle, and it is much easier on my eyes, even more so then paper. It's also very convenient for this sort of thing as you can notate, and bookmark.

Having said that, since you seem against making the wiki downloadable, I will make most of the FAQ available in an active table of contents version. Anyone interested will be able to do as many of the following as they choose: Scroll through the whole thing, click on the alphabet to get to different sections (I may include some specific topics too), print out all or parts of it by telling your printer which pages to print, load it onto your Kindle, Ipad, or the like, and if you have basic computer knowledge add the topics (mostly minor or just links) that I left out.

By the way, the "Under Construction," comment wasn't aimed at you. It's my short hand for links that lead to nothing (a few actually said "coming soon" or something like that) and others contain only a link, or a link to the forum. Those kind of things should be taken care of in one link (the initial link) and easily could be. I forget where they were as I was trying to lookup info at the time.

In the case of "Under Construction" the initial FAQ link button could include coming soon, and the other situations could include "forum" in their name. Simple and effective. Although it's great that the forum exists and is available, it's not always the option I'm looking for; it's handy to know what's behind a click before one goes there and is disappointed.

And one more "By the way." Although I may sound as if I'm carping--maybe because I am. I love MC. It's Grrreat! (I needed to save that for here, where it fits--I'm restricted to one usage per 24 hrs.). But many prospective customers probably do not realize how really good and innovative it is in time to plunk down their dollars/euros.... I'm pretty sure J River's yen for yen is as strong as any businesses, but I'm also pretty sure that the lack of a real manual (something that can be paged through) cuts down on said yen totals.

The reason I say that. It's taken me quite some time to realize MC's full potential (if I've even done so) and consequently I've spent too much time setting up things that I now have to tear down, because I didn't know better. When you're new to software and don't understand its scope is when you most need a manual. Something that you can page or leaf through. Something that will allow for a detailed overview with in depth exploration possible where your interest is piqued. If you can't see the big picture (in a detailed sort of way) you don't know what to ask, what to look for. You literally don't know what you're missing and in the end may not plunk down the....

It's really so simple. Put it into an editable pageable format--it's still on-line, but it doesn't have to be.

By the way--the 3rd, I think one incarnation or another of an ebook like interface is the future.
-Chris

[Gl3nn]

I'd like to raise my hand as another who believes that *some* kind of download-able manual, documentation, or wiki (if we must have that) ought to be available.

FWIW, the wiki format has never worked for me as a learning tool. 

[jm5546]

As a new user, I must say that trying to use MC15 has been a painful experience. The lack of a manual is a major problem. Blindly trying to figure out basic file manipulation and library functions is so frustrating I could just scream. Same goes for sifting through the WIKI.

If MC was freeware, one could not complain. But, for a paid program, it is inexcusable not to have a manual (seriously). None-the-less, MC15 looks like a nice application, so I will try my best to work with it over the 30 day evaluation period. At the end of the 30 days....well, we'll see.   

[rick.ca]

But, for a paid program, it is inexcusable not to have a manual (seriously).

But clearly it is excusable—most of us have done so. Traditional manuals for software such as this are becoming rather rare. I'm sure the reason is only a small minority of users use them, and the cost of creating and maintaining a truly useful manual for software that is under continuous development is very high. And I don't think the fact JRiver can't afford the resources is the reason—I don't have manuals for Microsoft Office either.

I think most new users would appreciate some sort of "getting started" documentation. As discussed in Marketing 101, that might be best deployed as part of the web pages first seen by prospective users—in the form of introductory walkthroughs and videos. If done right, those would serve equally well in demonstrating the program to the curious and helping a committed new user to get started as quickly as possible. Such documentation could provide "more information" links to wiki and forum topics to illustrate how where more comprehensive information is available.

I find it curious that despite the number of passionate users and the many complaints about documentation there aren't more contributions to the wiki. Maybe it would help if wiki topics were better organized/referenced. It seems I always have difficulty finding what I'm looking for. And if I can't find something, I'm never sure whether it doesn't exist, or I just couldn't find it. That doesn't leave me in the mood for returning to wiki to add a topic after I've figured out how to do something.

[crisnee]

Traditional manuals for software such as this are becoming rather rare. I'm sure the reason is only a small minority of users use them, and the cost of creating and maintaining a truly useful manual for software that is under continuous development is very high. And I don't think the fact JRiver can't afford the resources is the reason—I don't have manuals for Microsoft Office either.

Maybe it would help if wiki topics were better organized/referenced. It seems I always have difficulty finding what I'm looking for. And if I can't find something, I'm never sure whether it doesn't exist, or I just couldn't find it. That doesn't leave me in the mood for returning to wiki to add a topic after I've figured out how to do something.

I agree that creating a manual is no simple or inexpensive task. However to keep an on-line manual up to date is no big deal, as long as the manual is editable once it's been downloaded. When J River (in this case) makes a change that is worth noting they publish a clear addendum. They don't mess with the original, they just leave it up to the user to do what they will with the addendum, either add it into the original or keep it separate.

I disagree that manuals are rarely available these days. I haven't come across a paid for program that doesn't come with one, unless you're talking hard copy of course; that's another story. But on-line manuals, or on CD/DVD manuals are ubiquitous.

The problem is, the Wiki format truly stinks as a manual. For the reasons you mention, possibly inadvertently. Plus you can't browse, no big picture view, and you can't download unless bit by bit, for many hours is your idea of spending the day.

I decided to create the FAQ manual because I truly couldn't stand the Wiki. The manual is pretty good by the way. It's browseable and more readable than the Wiki, and it has an active index at the beginning and back to the top (index) buttons everywhere.

And, this is really cool, for those of you (if any) who have Kindles and possibly other ebooks. I'm just about done creating a Kindle version. This means, you'll be able to bookmark, notate, search, etc. and of course read the manual, while looking at or using MC.

By the way, if anyone can point me to topics that are complex enough and not just one time lookups that are not included on the FAQ page, please do, and I'll incorporate them into the manual too, eventually.

So, how hard can it be, to whip up a fairly decent manual from the info that's available? If I've been able to do what I have with no help in just a few days? If I were J River, I'd be giving me some help. Point me to all available/useful info and say "have at it," They wouldn't have to stand behind the manual (a user put this together use at your own risk kind of disclaimer), yet they might get something worthwhile. But, if anything, I feel a bit of resistance coming from....? Maybe it's something like "What's this new guy think he's doing anyway? Maybe after he's posted 748 times we'll consider what he...," Or maybe not.

Again, if anyone wants a copy of the original (see the post "FAQ manual now available" for details about contents) or the upcoming Kindle/ebook version (.amz or .prc) let me know. So far, I've sent out about 10 or 11 copies.

[rick.ca]

But, if anything, I feel a bit of resistance coming from....? Maybe it's something like "What's this new guy think he's doing anyway? Maybe after he's posted 748 times we'll consider what he...," Or maybe not.

Not. I've never seen the slightest hint of that here. But don't expect to get a free pass on ideas that don't stand up to scrutiny, or ignore the wisdom of those who have been here for many years. Some of us simply enjoy discussing the issues and believe that doing so results in better outcomes—whether that be in the design of the program, or in how to best assist it's users.

But on-line manuals, or on CD/DVD manuals are ubiquitous.

Manuals in the form you're advocating are far from ubiquitous. For this sort of software, the wiki is probably much closer to being so. But that's beside the point. If you're able to create from the wiki something close to what you think a manual should be, then we must already have a manual—in the form of a wiki. It's just the form you object to. If you've created something in which the content of the wiki is better organized, it's easier to find things and read, you can create the same thing using the wiki. That would provide pretty much the same thing, would reflect all changes to the content, and would be available to everyone.

This MediaWiki article suggests it's possible to structure a wiki so its contents can be published as a PDF book. That sounds like a much better solution to me. The online content can be organized more like a book, and a snapshot published at any time, presumably on demand by any user. That means we should all be able to use the form we prefer, knowing it's up-to-date and the same content that's available to everyone. There's another extension for publishing e-books. JRiver, of course, would have to install and support such wiki extensions. I suspect they would be happy to do so if anyone expressed an interest in using them.

So, I appreciate your willingness to help, if not the form. But when you ask—rhetorically I suppose—"how hard can it be, to whip up a fairly decent manual from the info that's available?", I have to wonder...How hard can it be for interested users to develop the wiki into what it could be?

[crisnee]

Manuals in the form you're advocating are far from ubiquitous. For this sort of software, the wiki is probably much closer to being so. But that's beside the point. If you're able to create from the wiki something close to what you think a manual should be, then we must already have a manual—in the form of a wiki. It's just the form you object to. If you've created something in which the content of the wiki is better organized, it's easier to find things and read, you can create the same thing using the wiki. That would provide pretty much the same thing, would reflect all changes to the content, and would be available to everyone.

I wasn't advocating a particular kind of manual; I did say that online and/or cd/dvd manuals are ubiquitous; Digital versions of hard copy manuals. I've been in the computer business since before the first Apple made its appearance and I've dealt with countless pieces of software, and haven't come across a single retail program without at least a digital manual (serial format, easily printable). Even a fair amount of freeware has decent manuals, at least in form.

The manual I mentioned was a thought. What I mainly would like is something I can browse and look at away from the computer. I thought I made it pretty clear that it was the form of the Wiki I object to. I'm not making any claim about the quality of the content of the manual. I did assume that the quality was good. However upon closer scrutiny, much of what I've looked at while reformatting doesn't look very good in terms of content either. In fact I've rewritten a few paragraphs here and there because the English was abysmal.

I think you made it pretty clear, though again inadvertently, why not much is happening with the Wiki. Just as it's difficult to use, it's difficult to know where and what to add to it. If it were in browse-able form (like a book), its scope would be clear, and consequently its lacks and limitations and what it needed would be evident.  Another difficulty re adding content to any form of manual, one need be absolutely sure that what one is adding is correct.  Not so simple when it comes to a complex changing program.

Re "I have to wonder...How hard can it be for interested users to develop the wiki into what it could be?" reformatting the Wiki in the way you suggest would involve organizing a group of people (unless a single person were to take on the task), and that's difficult in this kind of situation. 
-Chris

[rick.ca]

Well, this has been fruitful. We already know JRiver is not going to produce a manual. The wiki material could be reorganized into the form of a manual, and even published as one. But the content is crap, no one is capable of organizing it properly, and even if someone could, there's no way to be absolutely sure what's being added is correct. You're right, it's hopeless. I'm sorry I attempted to argue otherwise. After all, all retail software products have manuals, and none have ever deployed the equivalent documentation in the form of a wiki. And, of course, involving users in software development and support is not something any respectable developer should attempt to do.

[crisnee]

Well, this has been fruitful. We already know JRiver is not going to produce a manual. The wiki material could be reorganized into the form of a manual, and even published as one. But the content is crap, no one is capable of organizing it properly, and even if someone could, there's no way to be absolutely sure what's being added is correct. You're right, it's hopeless. I'm sorry I attempted to argue otherwise. After all, all retail software products have manuals, and none have ever deployed the equivalent documentation in the form of a wiki. And, of course, involving users in software development and support is not something any respectable developer should attempt to do.

Hey, which side of the bed...? Let's not over do the negative. The content is not crap--I've just noticed parts that are written poorly--what else is new when it comes to manuals. I don't know the program well enough to pronounce judgment on the Wiki's content.

And, if I haven't made it clear enough I am reorganizing the content into, in my opinion, better form. If I get the help I've asked for (for folks to point me to content that isn't available in the FAQ or that I might have missed) we should have a fairly good manual in one place. From there it will be much easier to revise further and make a truly good manual, if folks with expertise are willing to spend a little time on filling in the gaps and clarifying and revising any questionable content.

By the way, right after sending my previous post, I remembered a none sequential manual (Wiki like) I had to use in a complex program that was of great interest to me at the time. It was better organized than the MC Wiki but I still finally gave up on the program because of it. It got me to thinking how a good Wiki might be organized.

The thing that sets apart an ok reference book from a great one, is its index. And that's what's missing from the Wiki. A good Wiki would come with the best linked index ever (every conceivable search term), and a well thought out and complete table of contents (major categories with levels of sub categories), also linked. Then you would have something that you could put your mind around. Still not what I want (I would want it in sequential printable form if you haven't guessed by now) but much better.

-Chris

[crisnee]

But the content is crap, no one is capable of organizing it properly, and even if someone could, there's no way to be absolutely sure what's being added is correct.

All I meant was that care needs to be taken when entering content. Manuals by their nature are taken as the word of God, particularly by new and/or inexperienced computer users--the ones most likely to go to the manual. The wrong info, or ambiguous direction can lead to disaster, i.e. oops I just lost 5 hours work, or worse.

-Chris

[fitbrit]

Chris, I appreciate your efforts. At the very least, none of what you are doing is making MC worse. With that in mind, I won't use my time to criticise what you're doing with yours.

[glynor]

It's a reasonable request, but I think the Wiki works well enough.  We don't plan to make any changes.

Online docs are the future, in my opinion.

I concur sir.

The only thing I would perhaps recommend is that it would help if you actually assigned one of your workers to be in charge of maintaining documentation on the Wiki.  It wouldn't need to be a full time position, but giving one person the official responsibility (and dedicating 30 or 40% of their work product to it) would make a big difference, IMHO.

That, and the stuff about the tutorial videos discussed elsewhere.

But I agree with the core of your argument... Large monolithic manuals that need to be painstakingly updated on a yearly basis (or daily in J River's case) are completely outmoded, even when they are done as PDFs.  The investment of time in producing them is massive, and the return is usually quite minimal.  This is something we struggle with DAILY in my department at my job, as we maintain large catalogs of our products and other similar documents.

Generally there are a few quite-vocal proponents of them (particularly print-materials for some reason) but if you actually track the ROI, you might find that the return is quite low on the massive investment required to maintain these products.

[rick.ca]

From there it will be much easier to revise further and make a truly good manual, if folks with expertise are willing to spend a little time on filling in the gaps and clarifying and revising any questionable content.

If you're serious about collaboration, a wiki is the appropriate tool to use. As I explained, it's topics can be organized, tabled, indexed and cross-references any way you like. And the result can be published in book form.

All I meant was that care needs to be taken when entering content. Manuals by their nature are taken as the word of God, particularly by new and/or inexperienced computer users--the ones most likely to go to the manual. The wrong info, or ambiguous direction can lead to disaster, i.e. oops I just lost 5 hours work, or worse.

This is one significant reason why a wiki is a much more appropriate form of documentation for software under continuous development. It doesn't pretend to be as authoritative. It's contents can be treated with taken with some healthy scepticism, and if found wanting, updated or improved by the reader.

It's obvious the existing wiki has failed to engage users to the degree necessary for it to become self-sustaining. For that to happen, users have to believe it's at least worth a look to see if an answer to their question can be found there. If a time-consuming search doesn't result in an answer—or even a clear indication of whether the information exists (i.e., that annoying feeling the information is there, I just can't find it)—people will not be inclined to use it and even less likely to contribute to it. So a better organized wiki is much more likely to be successful.

The only thing I would perhaps recommend is that it would help if you actually assigned one of your workers to be in charge of maintaining documentation on the Wiki.  It wouldn't need to be a full time position, but giving one person the official responsibility (and dedicating 30 or 40% of their work product to it) would make a big difference, IMHO.

I agree. And in this community, the time commitment may be even less. It would be a big help if someone very familiar with the program and with access to internal information could provide the necessary structure and some "seed" documentation. Once users got sufficiently engaged, this person's duties might be limited to acting as sort of a moderator, and maintaining certain technical information which necessarily comes from internal sources. Rather than spend time creating topics interested users are just as capable of doing, this person's efforts could be focused on encouraging users to create topics to fill the biggest holes. They could also do things like maintain a checklist where user-authors log wiki updates necessitated by ongoing program changes (i.e., something like a changelog linked to significant topic additions or revisions).

If there were a good framework in place and a little supervision available, I think a lot of good content could be added by users simply by mining this forum for informative post. I know some users have added such posts (normally their own) to the wiki, but it's also obvious there's lots of excellent material that has not been added.

[Alex B]

It's a reasonable request, but I think the Wiki works well enough.  We don't plan to make any changes.

Online docs are the future, in my opinion.

I concur sir.

I'm not sure if you guys have actually understood what I suggested.

Here are two videos that might explain it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOTQuqHaBhQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1K03AZfpDM

Adding the pdf book feature would not need any changes to the content or current procedures. Just the initial effort to install and configure the additional free software on the MediaWiki server.

Naturally when the book feature is available the content creators can take it into the account when they consider the structure and layout.

Here is an example: a pdf book about Windows 7. I created it from Wikipedia articles in a couple of minutes: http://rapidshare.com/files/401781227/Windows_7_by_Wikipedia.pdf (4.1 MB)

You can create your own book from any Wikipedia content.

[glynor]

I'm not sure if you guys have actually understood what I suggested.

Oh, I'm fine with that (and, yes, I knew what you meant).  I just don't think manually creating fixed manuals (either PDF or printed), especially for a product that changes as rapidly as MC, is a valuable use of JRiver's extremely limited resources.

That extension (and others like it) does not work perfectly, but it is pretty good.  I use it on the Mediawiki I run at the office for our internal protocols.  Many of my users prefer to print things out, for whatever weird reason.

I have very limited uses for dead tree versions of ANYTHING anymore, personally.  But, to each their own.

[JimH]

A few comments...

I agree with glynor about not wasting paper.

Alex's idea of adding a package to the wiki is reasonable, BUT all new software we add increases the security risk and the maintenance time.  I don't think it's worth it in this case.

I agree with Rick's comment about the wiki being the path of least resistance for user supported effort.  Unfortunately, most users must not agree.  Here are the recent changes:
http://wiki.jrmediacenter.com/index.php?title=Special:Recentchanges&days=30

If you think it's not enough, change it.  That's what a wiki is for.  glynor did an amazing job on DirectShow once and it's one of the most popular pages we have.  Thanks, Ed.

Search is your friend.  If you think our wiki search is weak, try using google and searching for "[name your topic] wiki jriver" or just "[topic] jriver".

You're the user.  Try things.  Experiment.  Most things aren't that difficult.  And if they are, maybe you should spend your time on something more satisfying -- playing music, for example.

Much of what people struggle with has little to do with the program.  "How do I play this corrupt file that I downloaded from the Internet?" or "I'd like the program to look/work this way."  "My virus checker/Windows security won't let me play the music from my XYZ NAS drive."

On the plus side, the solution to a lot of this is the collective knowledge and generosity of the people who visit this forum.  Thank you all.

[rick.ca]

I agree with Rick's comment about the wiki being the path of least resistance for user supported effort.  Unfortunately, most users must not agree.  Here are the recent changes:

I said...

It's obvious the existing wiki has failed to engage users to the degree necessary for it to become self-sustaining.

...and these statistics seem to bear that out. But I also suggested why this might be, and what might be done about. I don't really know whether my suggestions would be effective, but clearly something has to be done. The idea a user-maintained wiki is the best form of documentation is not really relevant if it hasn't been effectively implemented.

Alex's idea of adding a package to the wiki is reasonable, BUT all new software we add increases the security risk and the maintenance time.  I don't think it's worth it in this case.

Adding any kind of extension to the wiki software might be justified solely on the basis it makes the wiki more appealing to users—and therefore more viable. For example, even a simple extension that integrated Google site search would make the wiki more appealing and more likely to provide a positive result. And while I don't understand it either, if some users are driven to the wiki because they know they can generate PDF documents from it, that would probably help too.

[Alex B]

I see the pdf book extension as a handy way to provide offline content. Some people may have time to read new things when an internet connection is not easily available. For instance on a plane or train trip, or when sitting inside a summer cottage during a rainy day. (The latter might apply to me. They are not promising lots of sunshine for this summer here. Though probably I'd read something else than MC Wiki. )

[Alex B]

You're the user.  Try things.  Experiment.  Most things aren't that difficult...

Actually, I have had a thread idea regarding this for some time... I'll try to get it started.

[crisnee]

Maybe I haven't made myself clear or maybe you guys refuse to think outside the box. I will try my part one more time.

My arguments for a Word/HTML based online download-able manual initially based on the Wiki. This is not a typical manual
1. Inexpensive to produce (since I'm producing one).
2. Anyone who downloads a copy can edit it to please themselves.
3. Addenda can be published by JRiver (or a knowledgeable user) when changes to MC warrant explanation.
4. Individual manual owners can update their copies with said addenda if they choose to.
5. Some volunteer (or not) could keep up a basic online manual with addenda.
6. The manual would be printable (in part or in total) for those who like/need paper.
7. It can be converted to Kindle/ebook format very nicely, (not so much from a PDF). (The Kindle is fantastic for this sort of thing
 as it's similar to a book, but no paper, much better than a book; you can make notations, add text, search,
 and bookmark, all while doing whatever with/to MC.
8. It can easily be converted to PDF for those who love PDF.
9. It would be browse-able and one could quickly get a feel for the scope of MC.
10. This is not meant to replace the Wiki. It however would be better (more useful) than the current Wiki.
11. Any additions to the Wiki would also be added to the manual. (The first addendum would be a separate file from the original online manual, later
addenda would be appended to the first addendum, that's it, 2 minutes) Every so often depending on the number of and scope of addenda published, someone would incorporate the "addenda" file into the main manual. A couple of hours at most.

The manual would not be a question of dead trees, manuals that are immediately obsolete, or big unused tomes lying around. None or *almost none of your negatives apply. It's a matter of something being almost all things to all people. It can be shaped into various forms, and changed whenever deemed useful. *I haven't gone back to read them again.
__________________________________________

A simple way to significantly increase the usefulness of the current Wiki, create an in depth index and a detailed table of contents, both linked. It would give new comers who don't know what to search for a good supply of relevant search terms and an overview of sorts. A little research by someone who knows MC and the layout of the Wiki would suffice to produce it. As an added benefit, the table of contents, if developed properly could double as a great overview/feature advertisement for MC.
-Chris
 

[rick.ca]

We're stuck in a box?! I never said anything negative about your idea, other than to imply it's hopelessly inefficient—which it is, compared to the alternative. I said a number of times the wiki could be configured to produce exactly the same result, and that this could be published to PDF. So if efforts were put into that instead of lost causes like cobbling together static manuals, anyone would be able to produce a complete PDF manual (or any desired section of it) on demand. You've chosen an approach whereby whatever effort you put into reorganizing the wiki contents will only benefit the handful of people you distribute the manual to, and those only as long as the contents remain current. To update it properly, you'll have to do it all over again.

A simple way to significantly increase the usefulness of the current Wiki, create an in depth index and a detailed table of contents, both linked.

Exactly—as I also said several times. So why don't you do this, and ask JRiver to install the PDF extension that will use that to automatically generate a manual?

[crisnee]

We'reI never said anything negative about your idea, other than to imply it's hopelessly inefficient—which it is, compared to the alternative. I said a number of times the wiki could be configured to produce exactly the same result, and that this could be published to PDF. So if efforts were put into that instead of lost causes like cobbling together static manuals, anyone would be able to produce a complete PDF manual (or any desired section of it) on demand. You've chosen an approach whereby whatever effort you put into reorganizing the wiki contents will only benefit the handful of people you distribute the manual to, and those only as long as the contents remain current. To update it properly, you'll have to do it all over again.

What you don't seem to understand is the efficiency/inefficiency angle. Think about it. I am not creating a static manual. I am just reproducing the Wiki in a more accessible form. It is not static, it is editable and can be added to at any time, the same as the Wiki. Both the on line version and already downloaded versions can be easily amended. The downloaded versions to each owner's whims. It need never be restarted from scratch unless MC completely changes, in which case the Wiki would be in the same boat.

But putting all that aside, I have nothing against the Wiki, it's just that no-one is doing anything with it, it's in pretty bad shape, and I don't know much (anything really) about dealing with it. I asked around and searched for info about manuals in the forum, no responses, and found only one or two very short threads from several years ago. So I decided to create a manual from the Wiki for myself as using it was really getting on my nerves. Then it occurred to me that some others might be interested in getting a copy, and if so, their interest would help drive me to do a better job. So that's where this thread and more manual talk than I could find since at least MC 12 came from. But it's just talk, probably about stuff that'll never get done. And that leads me to why I'm back here at this time in the morning. I forgot to make my most important point.
1. Something is being done about the lousy manual situation and at least some people are appreciating it, me included. I've sent out about 15 fairly complete manuals, the more recent copies have been streamlined and edited for clarity and conciseness. Space-wise they take up probably about 50% of their original form.

\So why don't you do this, and ask JRiver to install the PDF extension that will use that to automatically generate a manual?

I would, but JimH said in an earlier post that he would not add the required software (or any software I think), and besides I don't know the Wiki or MC well enough.
-Chris

[rick.ca]

Something is being done about the lousy manual situation and at least some people are appreciating it, me included.

I don't have any objection to what you're doing. I only made the undeniable points the same could be done more efficiently by reorganizing the wiki directly, and that this would be of much greater value to the user community.

I never suggested you should not be allowed to do what you're doing, or that you should be the one to reorganize the wiki. But that's what needs to be done. Who knows? Maybe one of those using your manual will see the light and be the one who reorganizes the wiki.

[JimH]

A simple way to significantly increase the usefulness of the current Wiki, create an in depth index and a detailed table of contents, both linked.

Maybe you've missed this index page.

[crisnee]

Maybe you've missed this index page.

It's the basis of the manual I've made up. Unfortunately it's not near the depth of index that a potential customer (a "try it out" user) or new user needs.

Several "try it out" users that have requested my remake in manual form of the Wiki FAQ, have expressed their negativity to me privately as regards the Wiki and your lack of documentation. They came to me because they're hoping that said remake will convince them to go with MC. All this in just a couple of weeks. It makes me think that you've probably lost quite a few customers over the years do to the lack of "proper" documentation.

I've had about 15 requests for manuals in all, but for some reason almost all have only contacted me privately; only a very few have posted on the topic.

-Chris

[JimH]

As said above, if you think the wiki isn't enough, log in and change it.  It's not very difficult.  Just edit any page to take a look at how it needs to be formatted.  If you break something, it can be rolled back to the previous version.

For documentation, a wiki is the best method, in my opinion.

I'm going to close this now.