Blender 2.5 Alpha Brings Major Changes

[numasan]

And that gives people the right to dump the responsibility of explaining how to use their software off on the users? You wouldn't accept that from software you paid for, so why are you willing to accept it from people that write free code?

Nobody is forcing you to use Free Software. Your bitterness is misplaced. I've contacted the support team for commercial software multiple times concerning issues that should be in their manual, so my expectations are different from yours. At least I can get help faster using a FLOSS forum or IRC, than writing 4 emails with the same question and waiting +1 day before the "support" person at company X knows how to answer me.

If you write code, it is your responsibility to explain how to use it. If you can't explain it then hire a writer that can.

You must be one of those persons that really don't understand open source...

Yet, surprisingly enough, the manuals that come with commercial artistic programs perform admirably enough at the task so you don't need to look for the "create-monster" button.

That's assuming that users RTFM. Those that do will be able to create in Blender/GIMP/etc. as well.

[BlackStar]

Wyatt, well said!

Yet, surprisingly enough, the manuals that come with commercial artistic programs perform admirably enough at the task so you don't need to look for the "create-monster" button.

Blender offers both free and commercial documentation], so I don't really get what your problem is. Personally, I've never really felt a lack of documentation for Blender - a confusing GUI, yes, but at least a well-documented one.

Note that this has always been the case in the open-source world: provide the code for free and sell supplemental 700page manuals on dead trees ("the X11 programming manual", "Apache: the definitive guide" etc etc). In some cases, these books may be offered online for free as a service to the community. On others, the community will create fora, wikis and tutorials to complement the official documentation.

Personally, I feel that it is ridiculous to expect coders to become writers who can produce 700pg manuals on demand - and for free! Writing skills take years of dedicated effort to develop, just like programming skills. You cannot simply start typing and expect something useful to appear out of thin air.

[Wyatt]

...why are you willing to accept it from [software you didn't pay for]?

When slightly rephrased, that sentence makes very little sense...

If you write code, it is your responsibility to explain how to use it. If you can't explain it then hire a writer that can.

Bull. If I write code, it's my responsibility to write it such that I and any other programmers I show the code to understand how the implementation works. Writing code and writing documentation are two different disciplines that are commonly conflated together for convenience of middle management.

Yet, surprisingly enough, the manuals that come with commercial artistic programs perform admirably enough at the task so you don't need to look for the "create-monster" button.

They were also written and edited by professionals that were hired by the company selling software.

I don't think this is all that incomprehensible.

[yogi_berra]

This is FLOSS.

And that gives people the right to dump the responsibility of explaining how to use their software off on the users? You wouldn't accept that from software you paid for, so why are you willing to accept it from people that write free code?

Who has the responsibility?

If you write code, it is your responsibility to explain how to use it. If you can't explain it then hire a writer that can.

One reason could be that the create-sinister-looking-monster button doesn't exist. You need a tutorial for that.

Yet, surprisingly enough, the manuals that come with commercial artistic programs perform admirably enough at the task so you don't need to look for the "create-monster" button.

[Silverthorn]

Why do you feel it is alright to dump the responsibility of documentation off on the user?

One reason could be that the create-sinister-looking-monster button doesn't exist. You need a tutorial for that.

[BlackStar]

Why do you feel it is alright to dump the responsibility of documentation off on the user?

Because it makes sense. Developers usually aren't professional writers *or* 3d modelers, and I'd rather read a book by the latter instead of a technical document.

(Edit: I misread the quote above as a direct question "Do you feel..." rather than "Why do you feel...")

[numasan]

Why do you feel it is alright to dump the responsibility of documentation off on the user?

This is FLOSS. Who has the responsibility? The developers spending their free time on writing the software? Besides, as has been said already you can buy books for many of the larger open source apps if you have problems with documentation contributed by users.

[yogi_berra]

I'm not sure why you'd want a dedicated technical writer duplicating all this work, when you can simply spend 5 minutes on google or buy a book written by a professional.

Why do you feel it is alright to dump the responsibility of documentation off on the user?

[yotambien]

No. That the application has advanced capabilities doesn't mean that it has to have a bad interface. And you seem to ackownledge that fact, since you said:

Now in 2.5 things are already much more logical and "easier", but it's still Blender.

So, it's still Blender (and quite probably better and with more options), but at the same time it's "more logical and easier". How can it be? It can be because of what I just said, interfaces do not have to be messed up for no particular reason. Please see Inkscape as an example of how things can be done when having the UI in mind from the beginning.

Just because many know 3D Studio Max and it therefore somehow has a de-facto interface, doesn't make it easier for people to use the potential it gives.

You are not entertaining the possibility that the acceptance of that particular interface actually has something to do with its quality and design merits. Actually, there is a bit of nonsense in your sentence. If somebody is familiar with a particular UI, it will definitely be easier to accomplish something with it, even when compared to a suposedly better designed one but pefectly alien to the user. In the long term your point is valid, though.

In any case this is not what happens with The Gimp, unless all the voices complaining about it are wrong, of course. That its developers realised it should tell you something.

[numasan]

@BlackStar

I partially don't agree. Mostly like I said these apps are very complex, which for highend use is good. Maybe it's easier to create a circle in Photoshop but how many people buy an app for $600 to do simple things? Because GIMP is more comparable to PS than MS Paint and many people don't need more than the latter, being the reason Canonical want to remove The GIMP from the default install. That is not GIMP's fault, no matter the UI. Same story with Blender, which is more like Max/Maya than Sketchup. If people can't/won't grasp the concept you can't blame the software.

Yes, both Blender and GIMP have "non-standard" interfaces but once learned they are powerful and flexible. Just because many know 3D Studio Max and it therefore somehow has a de-facto interface, doesn't make it easier for people to use the potential it gives. It's just that people have a higher incentive to learn a complex app when they've shelved out thousand of $$ for it, and "free can't be good = not worth the time"...