Re: [Gimp-developer] gimp.org tutorials

[Pat David <patdavid gmail com>]

On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 8:47 AM Elle Stone <ellestone ninedegreesbelow com>
wrote:

> That's a hugely impressive amount of hard work you've been doing.

Thanks! :)  It's lonely work, too.


> This seems like a good option. Dead links make a website look bad, and
> someone who reaches such a link won't know why the article is missing.
>
> If this route is taken, it might be nice to put links to updated/more
> accurate articles at the top (if available), along with an explanation
> of why the tutorial was "retired" (copyright, out of date, wrong
> information, etc).

That's a good idea, and I think I'll go back through and add that when I'm
done migrating.  I may also put a big(ger) notice at the top of the
tutorial pointing out that it is not freely licensed.


> "Out of date" and "restrictrive or unclear copyrights" are two serious
> issues, it seems to me. Another issue is "technically incorrect
> information".

We do strive to be technically correct. :)


> Similar comments apply to the articles' respective discussions of
> obtaining Luminance/Luminosity using GIMP 2.8.
>
> Part of the problem is from limitations imposed by GIMP 2.8's 8-bit
> integer processing, which makes it impossible to obtain RGB Luminance
> and LAB Lightness wihtout also posterizing the RGB data. And any mention
> of "technically" or "mathematically" incorrect shouldn't be read to
> imply "aesthetically wrong".
>
> It would be nice if officially hosted GIMP tutorials could be modified
> to include notes about "technically correct" vs "what can actually be
> done using GIMP 2.8".

There's a balance that should be struck, in my opinion, where we want to
put forth technically correct information while still maintaining
accessibility and readability for a possibly non-technical audience.
Striking that balance is one of the reasons I am trying to update tutorials
and present information in a hopefully approachable manner while not being
too overwhelming.

As such, I'd happily accept patches to any material :).

Also, I don't mind adding the "technically correct" disclaimer to the
tutorials mentioned.  Rather than linking offsite to your reference
article, perhaps you could consider licensing it and the images liberally
for us to include it on the site?

I will file a bug against the new site for this exact purpose and reference
this thread so I remember to add it (I've already moved quite past the
referenced articles, so will need a reminder to come revisit this).

I'll gladly help set up the build environment if you wanted to help
transfer articles! :)