Thomas de Groot schrieb:

> I think this looks and feels very good.

Thank you (and all others so far) for the feedback.

> While - to some extent - I agree with Warp, I believe the structure of the 
> text should remain as Clipka wrote it. After all, one can jump directly to 
> the practical part if one wants to.

Yes, I'll probably stick to this structure, despite unexpectedly 
numerous comments that suggest to change it.

While I do see the benefits of structuring it the other way round, there 
is a pretty simple some reason why I didn't: The order I used is simply 
my style of writing. I'd probably have a much harder time trying to get 
it the other way round and still be happy with the text.

Once I hand over the text to the POV-Ray community, everyone who feels 
up to it is free to propose a re-structured version of the text. No 
problem there.

I don't think this is really needed though. For the average user, the 
how-tos important to them probably boil down to (a) how to properly 
calibrate the system and set the Display_Gamma option, and (b) the 
advice to stay with POV-Ray's default settings and let the recently 
implemented gamma handling automatisms do their job. (a) is best placed 
(or at least linked to) in the installation section anyway, and (b) does 
not need an elaborate tutorial. For any issues beyond that, I guess the 
user will need at least some background information so that they can 
assess which of the tips are applicable to their particular problem. And 
if they already have that information, they can just skip to the how-tos 
by virtue of the table of contents. I think the section titles are 
talktive enough for that.

> To make that easier, I suggest to subdivide the text in 2 clear parts, 
> Theory and Practice, also mirrored (of course) in the Content, and increase 
> the number of code examples in the Practice part.

I guess I'd make that 3 parts: One "what is gamma all about" section 
giving background information, one "why should I bother" section naming 
some pitfalls, and one "how to" section describing how to deal with 
those issues.

I'm reluctant to already put this subdivision into place though; the 
current lower-level titles' typography makes me uneasy, them being much 
bolder and prominent than normal section titles. Looks like they're 
currently not intended to be used.

Post a reply to this message