[TYPO3] Documentation nightmare

[Daniel Bruessler]

Hello Vincent,

thank you for your thoughts. The videos: in the moment we (DocTeam) 
don't care for the videos, there's another team what cares about that. 
Maybe you should try it with Ubuntu-Linux Gutsy Gibbon. That's what I'm 
using, I have very seldom problems to watch something. The most of the 
propetary stuff is usable with Ubuntu, too.

+++

We're evaluating several solutions for "documentation 2.0". One reason 
why a Web-CMS is not a Print-Documentation-Tool:

A Web-CMS has pages, it has NO PAGEFLOW from one page to another like 
you have in a book.

A book has a pageflow. When a word doesn't fit on page 24 it has to be 
put on page 25. If a picture doesn't fit on page 25 it has to be put on 
page 26.

Clear now?

We do have three tools in our candidates-list, what are based on TYPO3. 
That would shurely the nicest solution. ;-) We are free to look over the 
teacup "Wir schauen auch über den Tellerrand".

Cheers!
Daniel


>> ...
>> No Training at all would be needed as all TYPO3 Extension Developers already
>> work with TYPO3
>> No additional Software would be needed as TYPO3 already comes along with all
>> we would need
>> No Licence Costs as it is GNU ... OK you know all the benefits of TYPO3 so
>> please use it!
>>
>> But as said FIRST OF ALL we would need the definitive decission to USE TYPO3
>> and also stop discussing other solution and instead investing the ideas and
>> time in the idea of USING TYPO3!
>> ...
> 
> As the one who started this whole thread with my documentation complaint
> :-), I thought I would give you my two cents worth from the perspective
> of somebody who is still evaluating content management systems trying to
> decide whether we should choose typo3 or not.
> 
> First I will say that I am happy to see so much interest in correcting
> documentation problem sparking up.  It is a significant factor in
> keeping typo3 on our CMS consideration list.  I just hope it does not
> die out this time.
> 
> Now my 2 cents worth:
> 
>   I fully agree with Andreas.  There is an additional reason though.  As
>   a newcomer evaluating typo3, after all the claimed powerful features,
>   if I see that the typo3 community does not even feel their own CMS is
>   suitable to manage and publish their own documentation, which is
>   supposed to be what it is designed to do, and instead have to resort
>   to something like google docs or other external services, then I would
>   be very sceptical as to the true usefulness of the software.  I would
>   see that as a very negative sign.
> 
>   Which brings up another concern along the same line.  So far as I can
>   tell, the official typo3 wiki does not run on typo3 either.  It
>   apparently runs on mediawiki.  This brings up the same concern in my
>   evaluation.  My understanding is that typo3 has a wiki extension.  Do
>   the official typo3 developers and contributers not consider their own
>   sofware suitable to even run their own wiki either?
> 
>   Daniel Bruessler <danielb at typo3.org> wrote:
>   > O3Spaces Workplaces:
>   > I installed it on my Ubuntu Desktop this morning. The installation
>   > is very easy, then the server is accessable via Firefox:
>   > * Spaces: http://localhost:8095/Spaces
>   > * Studio Admin-Tool: http://localhost:8095/Studio
>   >
>   > You just need Java on your computer.
>  
>   Please do not even consider requiring doc contributers to use any
>   tools that require proprietary software components such as Java.  We
>   run all BSD, for example, and have never gotten a fully working Java
>   environment going.  Typo3 is already suffering from years going by and
>   nobody taking the time to update the documentation.  Do anything to
>   make it less convenient, and it I suspect it may still not happen.
>   Even requiring Open Office, is something I would recommend against.
>   It is a huge package that we have had software dependency problems
>   with in the past and usually do not have it running on our machines.  
> 
>   To me the natural choice would be to use typo3 for the official docs
>   and for official contributers to collaborate, and continue your wiki
>   for public contributions.  Then the official *doc people* can, in
>   addition to their own writing, copy material from the wiki, edit as
>   needed, and organize it into the official docs.
> 
>   I think the documentation should be kept simple enough to be edited
>   in-line in the typo3 wysiwyg editor or for authors to be able to use
>   any local tools they choose that can output simple html and paste it
>   into typo3.  It seems to me that simple text formatting, image
>   inclusion, and tables, should be sufficient for documentation and
>   tutorials.  Get to elaborate on the tools or formatting requirements
>   and you start cutting out people and contributions.  The important
>   thing is the wording, cross linking of subjects, and pictures.  It
>   should basically have the convenience of a wiki for the authors.
>  
>   Also, on a side note, I want to say this, just in case you have other
>   ideas, before you get to far along and start creating any new videos.
>   Please continue with Casper's original pattern of making videos in
>   a format that mplayer can play natively, such as mpeg or ogg.
>   Preferably ogg.  I have seen at least one or two newer (relative to
>   the official docs) videos for typo3 that were in Flash.  I have to
>   have a special browser plugin wrapper and a full Linux emulation
>   support environment installed for BSD, and then can only run flash-7
>   and then I can only view them embedded in a window in the browser.
>   Yuck!  
>   
>   When we evaluating WebGUI in the past, that was a show stopper.  Even
>   now, all videos I have found are poor resolution blurry flash.
>   Actually the flash video that is embedded in their online demo is
>   reasonable resolution, but we blew off WebGUI for over 2 years as
>   a candidate because we never had flash working and could not find any
>   other suitable docs for a reasonable evaluation.  We are in the
>   process of re-evaluating now that we found they have a support wiki
>   and you apparently can buy PDF books that are up to date, but the
>   proprietary video format issue still is a huge negative.
>