Doc talk:2.4/FAQ

Notes about the New FAQ Structure

Good sub FAQs need to be found. Perhaps it would be suitable to go along like this. Note that this does not contain each possible sub FAQ. It's just more of a description of the highest level hierarchy.

1. Basic Information (for totally new users) (gives answers that help to get started)
   1. Installing
2. Modelling
   1. Curve Modelling
   2. Mesh Modelling
   3. NURBS Modelling
3. Materials & Textures
   1. Material Nodes
   2. Procedural Textures
   3. UV Mapping
4. Lighting
   1. Ambient Occlusion
5. Compositing
   1. Compositing Nodes
6. Animating
   1. Rigs
7. Rendering
8. Modifiers (not sure about need of this)
9. Special Effects
   1. Fluid Simulation
   2. Particles
   3. Soft Bodies
10. Python
11. Game Engine
12. Video Editing
    1. Sequencer
13. Version Related FAQs (to answer questions related to issues with new versions compared to old ones)
    1. 2.4 series

In my opinion each page should contain only about twenty questions at maximum. Otherwise it gets too cluttered. The main idea is to keep higher level questions higher at the hierachy. More specific and less important ones can be found lower in the hierachy.

--BeBraw 14:56, 7 November 2006 (CET)

Should a question page that has the unanswered questions be created?

Would it be a good idea to make a page that contains the unanswered questions and keep only the questions that have answers on this page?

--BeBraw 15:11 03 May 2006 (GMT+3)

I origenally created this page and got a fare bit further than I load. I used it to present to the docboard. From the best thtat i could determan at that stage

a)not every one was anty it by prefered a more conventional one that highlighted some of the basics of blender and

b) Bart Veldhuizen said then that he was busy rebuilding the knowlage base.

both of these make these make this page redundant...though with 5000 hit it most probly is useful. The thing is i don't have delet access. So some one else would have to remove it.

alabandit

Alternative structure for the faq

I discussed with Spiderworm about how the faq should be structured. He came up with a good and maintainable idea in my opinion and I made a demonstration [page] about it. Basically it is a treelike [structure]. The current subcategories could be used or new ones could be created.

Advantages:

1. No more separate pages for the answers and the questions. -> Easier to maintain.
2. The information is structured naturally in subcategories. -> Easier to navigate.
3. Less information on each page than on this solution. -> Loads faster.

Disadvantages:

1. If categorizing is not made carefully, navigation can be harder than it ought to.

Feel free to add more advantages/disadvantages to the list.

--BeBraw 20:50 03 May 2006 (GMT+3)

The question was raised last time we discused a FAQ jan/dec whats the difrence between this one and the official one[1]? Cause we don't want to be doubling work?

alabandit

Index page needed?

Currently we bascially have a duplicated idnex page because FAQ as well as FAQ/Index feature all (safe for the sub-pages) categories. My proposal ist to move the list to the to of FAQ and put the FAQ-related FAQs below it ("FAQ Help" header?). What do you think? --Hoehrer 09:13, 5 December 2006 (CET)

That sounds like a good idea! --BeBraw 10:18, 5 December 2006 (CET)