Re: How do new users feel about LilyPond's documentation?

[N. Andrew Walsh]

I started using Lily for serious maybe a month ago, so I'm what you'd call new. I find the guide far more useful than the manual (the former seems more structured around how to do specific things, while the latter seems much more a general conceptual introduction). 

However (and this is something I mentioned on a couple recent message exchanges), I feel that neither one of them gets me very far past making a single monolithic file using defaults. There's been a lot of mention (I imagine rightfully) about how Lily is capable, above all, of making beautifully engraved scores, and her suitability to managing a text-based, distributed, and version/change-tracked workflow. All of that sounds awesome, but I don't see anywhere where that's comprehensively documented. 

Let's take my case: I'm transcribing masses from some obscure composer from the 18th century. There are no extant scores, only the parts (which ironically works better for Lily's structure). I want these scores to look their absolute best, and the underlying files to follow the best practices for structure and organization. I want to put the score and parts alongside the work of a commercial (read: Sibelius-using) house and have it be unambiguously a better-looking and standards-conforming result, and be able to show the incredible flexibility and rigorous flow-control that using the underlying system can offer.

I don't see anywhere in the reference or the manual where that sort of comprehensive style guide is presented. I'm thinking something like the doorstops O'Reilly's uses for documenting, say, HTML. I hate to use the term (it's already been ruined by bureaucrats), but what I'm really looking for is a comprehensive "best practices" style guide for how to organize larger scores.

Urs, I think this would probably dovetail nicely with your efforts to build a pool of competent engravers, as we would then all be working from the same style guidelines. 

But that's just my use-case. Maybe there are others?

Cheers,

A

On Wed, Apr 22, 2015 at 9:03 PM, Urs Liska <address@hidden> wrote:

Am 22.04.2015 um 20:48 schrieb Federico Bruni:

Hi Abraham

I've been using LilyPond since 6 years.

I think that LilyPond documentation is great. Learning Manual is a gentle introduction (basically 3 chapters only) for new users and Notation Reference is a complete reference, well indexed and easy to search through.

I never found anything better (which is as complex as LilyPond).

I am quite in line with that impression. I don't think the *documentation* can be *much* better in general. However, there are a few things that would help new users (I think it would be very good if some of these could also comment on this thread).

It would be helpful if there were more learning material that has a slower pace and into more depth at explaining things than the notation reference. The Learning Manual is very good, but when that's finished people are not ready to walk alone.
That's what I intend with the tutorials section on the blog, but of course these posts are only drops in the ocean. But better than nothing.
I could also see something like a community book emerging from these tutorials, but I'm not sure how well this would work out.

Urs

2015-04-22 17:09 GMT+02:00 Abraham Lee <address@hidden>:

All,

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, even going so far as to create my own "Quick Start" tutorials for new users, but I can only go so far in my own head. I really have two questions that I keep wondering about:

1. What is the thing you (especially new users) like the least about LilyPond's documentation structure?
2. If you could have the same documentation structure as found in another notation program, which program is it? Or put another way: Is there a notation program out there that has a documentation structure you like?
   

1. The missing connection between input and output, in other words something similar to the experience of point-and-click in an editor. Yes, this is not about structure. I think that structure of NR is Ok.
Also, syntax highlighting would help readability:
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=2578
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=1005

2. no idea

 

1. 
   

I'm asking this because I'm trying to determine how we in the 'Pond can make it easier for new users to jump in with both feet instead of dipping a toe and getting scared of the deep.

I may be over-thinking this, but I keep getting the feeling that people are scared of using LilyPond partially because the documentation, though deep and detailed, is a little too deep and technical for new users who are familiar with a GUI program and less familiar with programming.

I think that the best way for that kind of users is starting from screencasts:
http://benlemon.me/blog/music/lilypond/operation-lilypond

What I would find useful is an interactive guide to lilypond syntax:
https://code.google.com/p/lilypond/issues/detail?id=4200

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user

_______________________________________________
lilypond-user mailing list
address@hidden
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user