#Imagine Docs Help
7 messages in this thread
George,
There's an interesting letter in Sept 91 AV/Video (a trade publication)
from Impulse CEO/programmer Michael Halvorson that starts out "… we are
very supportive of your efforts to increase and inform what is an otherwise
ignorant mass of computer users." Then it takes the mag to task for errors
about Imagine that appeared in a chart that compared 3D programs. It seems
the poor reviewer compiled it from publishers' documentation which, for the
other programs, evidently includes information about what the program does
and how to use it, giving them an unfair advantage.
Maybe those of us who use Imagine are just too ignorant to understand real
documentation, and they're doing us a favor by not including any.
— Bill
Bill,
There is, on some level, a haughty arrogance in what you report
from the magazine article you cited. Impulse would do itself and the public
a favor by adopting the attitude of educators. Helping people understand
and excell in the use of their products would only build enthusiasm for the
company and user enthusiasm coupled with ease of use translates into an
enhanced reputation and more sales.
Impulse is perfectly within its "rights" to simply produce product
and let its users flounder. It is within its "rights" to adopt a "pearls
before swine" attitude towards its customers, but I think it is ultimately
self-defeating to do so.
Best, George Roland
Bill, I do not own Imagine so can't comment on the accuracy and
thoroughness of it's manual. However, I do have Impulse's new product,
Foundation. Foundation is a hypercard-type of product. I haven't played
with it enough yet to come to any conclusion on how powerful and flexible
it might be for my uses.
However, the manual is a total disaster. The manual is large. I don't
know how large (without counting the pages) because they've elected to not
number the pages sequentially. It's on the order of 200-300 pages. As I
said, Foundation is a hypercard-type program. It is geared heavily toward
graphics presentations. The manual does not have a single picture or
illustration. I don't know how accurate the manual is in its entirety but
the very first user example in the manual has at least 2 glaring errors.
If a new user were to follow this example they'd not successfully complete
this example.
Foundation is the only Impulse product I have. I don't know if the
Foundation manual is indicative of the manuals/documentation for their
other products, but it does a great disservice to what appears to be, at
first glance, a fine program.
-sja
Steve,
I think you've put your finger on why this is so frustrating. Impulse
software is great, but you can't really take advantage of it without an
enormous investment of time. I'd rather pay a couple of hundred dollars
more for comprehensive documentation. And I'm talking about nothing more
than a complete and accurate explanation of how the tools work. I don't
expect a treatise on how to achieve every conceivable effect.
I expect some are many who have the time to experiment and would prefer
trial and error to paying for documentation, so comprehensive docs may be
something that should be optional. I don't think this need is likely to be
filled by third parties, since the author of a real reference manual needs
to be intimately familiar with the program — i.e., with the source code.
Even the Impulse manuals seems to be more-or-less afterthoughts provided by
talented outsiders without access to adequate information.
Many software developers feel they should spend more money/time on the docs
than the code — and base the code on the docs (if it's hard to explain, we
probably need to rework the code). I suspect Impluse isn't among them.
Good luck with Foundation. I expect it's a fine program, if you can figure
out how to use it.
— Bill
Steve,
Believe me, your experience with Impulse documentation is "indicative".
Although there are some impressive wizards at Impulse who produce
amazing products, it's almost as if they're aware of this and simply hand
down products from the mount with a sniff and say "This is impressive.
Trust us. Now go forth and experiment." Not that they aren't necessarily
responsive to phone calls, etc. Just that they seem to trulyexpect the
brilliance of the product itself to carry it, and any effort or time spent
producing documentation is a waste of product-development time. And for
their small staff, this may well be true. But they'd better not take
offense when someone complains about "typically shoddy documentation from
Impulse". They've earned it.
For me, Imagine is such a gas, I'm willing to put up with the docs and
turn to third parties. Other folks who expect a "typical" Amiga product's
documentation standards will be disappointed: Impulse just doesn't work
that way.
Karl
– via Whap!
I've usually found throughout the years with my involement with different
PC's that the best programmers usually write the worst documentation. I've
always believed that the doc's should be beta-tested just as the software
is, and not BT'ed by programmers, but actual everyday users of the
software.
John – K7KB (via Whap!)
John, I think you're absolutely right. I'd even take it a step further.
The docs need to be pretty far along before the program is finally locked
down. It's very difficult for a programmer to see logical inconsistencies
in the way features are implemented until you go through the exercise of
trying to explain it to someone else. If a procedure is difficult to
explain, it probably needs to be rethought. By handing the task of
documentation over to an outsider as an afterthought, Impulse is denying
themselves and their software the advantages of this important QA step at
the same time they leave themselves vulnerable to any potential competitor
with a mediocre program and superior documentation.
— Bill