Reading this question makes me feel uncomfortable. How would defining
above criteria shape the way the documentation is going to be built?
And isn't using that criteria to define the shape presumptuous, forcing
you and me to make assumptions about groups of people you're/I'm not
part of? IMHO, inclusiveness is not achieved with identity politics.

Thanks thanks a lot for taking a stand and explaining gaps in my communication! What I pretend is to put ourselves open to welcome other points of view, welcome the needs of others than us when they surface. I don't know at this moment how to surface this need without some friction. Sorry about that and I think we can continue from the point of the explicitness of the need of welcoming diverse points of view.

I'm sorry for not giving you a more interesting/challenging view. I'm
not saying the documentation cannot be improved, but I fail to see
obvious problems with it. OTOH, I'm interested to hear about problems
people face with the current documentation.

I think you showed strong points of the actual documentation that has to be kept in a review if needed.

About the point 2. It is addressed to open the scope of feedbacks. I think that the effort to create a new standard for documentation should cover as many opinions as possible at first (like this one). It's like a brainstorm. Then we will try to systematize and organize the material we have in order to constitute a form that satisfies everyone as much as possible with easy maintenance, open to collaborations.

Thanks again Roman!

Em ter., 25 de mai. de 2021 às 11:00, Roman Haefeli <reduzent@gmail.com> escreveu:

Hi

On Mon, 2021-05-24 at 20:49 -0300, Esteban Viveros wrote:

> 1. What is the audience that you believe will make use of the Pd
> documentation? Things like, advanced english speakers, academics, the
> gender, low/high earning power, if they are programmers, musicians,
> open source people, nationality... whatever you can write in a few
> words.

Reading this question makes me feel uncomfortable. How would defining
above criteria shape the way the documentation is going to be built?
And isn't using that criteria to define the shape presumptuous, forcing
you and me to make assumptions about groups of people you're/I'm not
part of? IMHO, inclusiveness is not achieved with identity politics.

I'm rather interested in what _you_ think is wrong with existing
documentation and what _you_ think how it can be improved. I think this
would lead to a more honest discussion.

Just to give you one data point:

For me the most important part is a comprehensive reference. Pd already
covers what I need with the existing help-files (section 5) describing
object classes and their supported methods. However, the reference is
only interesting once you know how the language works and when you are
familiar with its concepts. I learned Pd with the documentation it is
delivered with. So, the sections 1-4 - for me at least - already did a
great job at introducing me into Pd. Having said that, it took me years
until I even tried to use data structures and I am not even sure I
understand them now.

I'm sorry for not giving you a more interesting/challenging view. I'm
not saying the documentation cannot be improved, but I fail to see
obvious problems with it. OTOH, I'm interested to hear about problems
people face with the current documentation.

> 2. Issues you see in actual way to document the objects, suggestions
> to improve documentation to meet your imagined pd user.

Why imagined? What you think is already interesting I find. Also, you
may have made your experiences with other Pd users and gained some
insight from that?

Roman
_______________________________________________
Pd-list@lists.iem.at mailing list
UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> https://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list