Re: improving LilyPond useability

[David Kastrup]

Renato <address@hidden> writes:

> On Mon, 2 Dec 2013 18:14:52 -0000
> "Phil Burfitt" <address@hidden> wrote:
>
>> >you don't really get around these programs without reading docs
>> >(and you shouldn't try to make it easy).
>> 
>> I disagree with "you shouldn't try to make it easy".
>
> what I meant was "you shouldn't try to make it easy to get around
> fiddling with the program without reading the docs", i.e. you shouldn't
> try to encourage not reading the docs

Why?  I find nothing wrong with things that work as expected as much as
possible.  It is not a sign of good design if naive expectations turn
out wrong again and again.  The purpose of LilyPond is typesetting
music, not a puzzle game.  As it is a language composed of arbitrary
letters on the keyboard, one needs something to start off, true.  An
environment with default templates or a sample document/run-through at
least gives the user enough of a clue to know when he needs to look at
more stuff or can try figuring out something by himself.

But when he _does_ try figuring out something by himself, then it's nice
if at least some things work out as expected instead of failing for
obscure technical reasons.

There is no point in exhausting the tolerance levels of the user just
for kicks.  Learning stuff must have proportional rewards, or at some
point people stop.

And that means we need a user experience where you are not stuck for
days in the docs before getting out your first notes.

-- 
David Kastrup