Time for a FAQ. What about a Wiki ?

This group is very active.
Active groups maintain a FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) .
I think we need one now, so that we could direct newbies to it and
concentrate on new topics here.
I discovered Wiki, which is imho the ideal way to collaborate on documents.
Basically a Wiki is a website that anybody can edit freely cia a very simple
web interface.
I just set up one and started experimenting a SolidWorksWiki. Try it and
tell me : is it the right way to set up a SolidWorks FAQ ?
www.dynabits.ch/spikini/ (yes, .ch, not .com for this one)

 

Brilliant, Philippe, great initiative.

I can't think of a better way to address this definite need.

I tried a tiny edit (under "Inventor" changed "younger as SolidWorks" to
"younger than SolidWorks"), and it worked fine.

If you get recurrent problem edits or deletions, can you block that person
or area?
(I guess the most likely areas to attract problems are the descriptions of
the various packages, might attract ravers and knockers, not to mention
jingoists!) Obviously there's no need to solve that if it doesn't happen,
but it doesn't hurt to set things up mindful of that as a possibility.

Is it easy enough to add an English translation to the buttons? (or a single
explanatory location for all French terms used?) Even for those with a
working knowledge of French some terms are unfamiliar in a computing
context, such as "aperçu".

One thing about removing "outdated" information- it might pay to have a
recommendation that information about previous versions be flagged as no
longer current, but retained on the site for several years-
increasingly as the product matures it is likely that not all users will
feel the need to immediately adopt every major version change.

Thanks for taking the time and trouble to get this ball rolling, I think it
could be a real asset.

 

Wikis are by essence open. The idea is that you can undo unwanted
contributions.
If it works for a great project like the http://www.wikipedia.org, I guess
it should work for a limited audience such as the SolidWorks users...

However, the engine I use (spikini) has 2 mechanisms that improve safety:
1) ownership: the first author of a page can control who might edit it.
2) version control : you can retrieve the state of a page at any date (click
the date at the bottom of the page)

Yes, sorry, I thought the thing was multilingual... I just set it to English
(mostly...)

Can be done with the revision control above.

Visit the SolidWorks Wiki at www.dynabits.ch/spikini !

 

+1

Some terms are unfamiliar in a computing

= Preview

 

does this wiki implementation follow the rules of other wiki systems?
Like using external links in the form of [external link
http://some.url.somewhere]


Johnny

 

I was unable to login after I received my password. I was sent ....

Internal Server Error
The server encountered an internal error or misconfiguration and was unable
to complete your request.
Please contact the server administrator, and inform them of the time the
error occurred, and anything you might have done that may have caused the
error.
More information about this error may be available in the server error log.

Keith Streich

 

almost. It is [external link->http://some.url.somewhere]
The rules are here http://www.dynabits.ch/spikini/?wiki=FormattingRules

 

you don't need to login or any password to contribute!
I didn't enable login (yet) as I have to set up the security of the whole
website.
I will do it one day to enable(registered users) to upload images and
models.

 

Is there some way to search the Wiki? Once we get people to start filling in
the FAQs and Tips and Tricks, there are going to be a heck of a lot of
entries. (OK, maybe a little wishful thinking there. I've got an ungodly
number of tips and tricks saved from this newsgroup, but no time to edit
them and put them in the Wiki. I suppose many of us are in the same boat.)

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

I looked around a bit and found myself enjoying the opportunity to correct
grammatical & spelling mistakes right then & there. Since it appears that
the universal language is going to be English, I would hope that nobody
would be offended if a natural English speaking person corrected those kinds
of things. But I also see a possibility of abuse as it's all wide open.

Here's a good example of something we should address. In the Macro page is
this statement:
"A macro can do anything you can do manually in SolidWorks by calling API
functions."

I'm not sure this is absolutely correct as every once in a while we see a
request for access to something through the API. This tells me that someone
saw something they wanted to do, but couldn't get to it yet.

So, how do we best address questions & differences of opinions? I would not
want to just change someone else's stuff, but if I think it's not entirely
accurate, it should be discussed. Maybe bringing it back to here would be
the proper method.

WT

 

Philippe...great, nice and cool!

WT...would it be too difficult to "approve pending adds/modifications"?
Many calendar kind of web scripts are using it. We just have to have
enough people who has rights to approve, so that it all doesn't fall on to
one person.

Or at least there should be possibility to comment what ever somebody else
is writing..

 

Oh, no, no, no, no - American middle of the country English WILL be the
standard - so says I! ) (If I put this in the Wiki, y'all could be
changing it right now.) ))

Ok, so we now have our first major disagreement, but I can see many back and
forth changings by some people that are not very tolerant at times.

You know what, maybe we are putting the cart before the horse here - let's
see where it goes. I'm cool. Hey, it's 5:30 on a Friday afternoon on a
holiday weekend - I'm going home.

Oh, take a look at this fireworks display - it's pretty good.
http://www.njagyouth.org/Liberty_.htm

WT

 

Why don't we all just sign our answers? That makes it easier for us to see
where the answers are coming from and also will tend to keep the nice people
from screwing with other people's text. (Nothing will stop the jerks, but we
don't have any here!)

Jerry Steiger
Tripod Data Systems
"take the garbage out, dear"

 

Sure. I just made a few pages quickly to show how it could work. I think
different opinions
can be either added to a page ("a different opinion on this is ..." or "{I
think differently about this, what is your opinion?}" between {} for italics
and next editors could try to merge/sum up the contributions.

It wouldn't be a Wiki anymore...

I suggest to use {italics} for this. Example
http://www.dynabits.ch/spikini/?wiki=Macro

 

Right. It can be done as in http://www.dynabits.ch/spikini/?wiki=Macro. You
can even make your own page...

 

What about the SW knowledgebase?

Other than the fact that:
1. You have to be on subscription.
2. You have to have the patience of Job to find anything.
3. Many articles are outdated.
4. It doesn't work with Google.

And then there is the online help and a bunch of other stuff they have on
the official web site.

 

I think Phillipe is suggesting, and (assuming he is!) I agree:

The prime agenda for our own FAQ site is to have a catch-all redirection
resource for all those newbie FAQs which experience suggests will inevitably
land here: how do I save files so they can be read in a previous version,
what's different about SldWks etc etc

Secondly any SWks resource will always shy away from certain topics,
generally to do with what doesn't work, or what should work but is currently
broken, or what does work but you have to walk a tightrope to persuade it to
do so. Anything, in short, which does not bathe their cherished offspring in
the most favourable possible light.

Further to that, some aspects of SldWks documentation are misleading,
unclear, or wrong. I'm happy to assert that these aspects seem to me to be
diminishing over time. Furthermore, the hypertext concept of On-Line Help
can make it very difficult to find the answers to certain questions,
particularly to a user whose product-specific vocab or lexicon is not up to
speed for whatever reason.
I still stumble across backwaters of info whose entranceways have eluded my
grasp for years.
A linear text, as in one intended from the outset to be printed, tends not
to have these undiscovered pockets.

I think our test for whether to post a topic under the SolidWiki (hummmm)
should be:

Can a satisfactory answer to this question realistically be found by the
sort of user it is targeted to, using on-line Help?
If so, only post an answer if that question repeatedly comes up on the NG.
(Preferably make the answer a more concise and clear summation, and refer to
the Help page by name) If the answer in Help is judged insufficient or
deficient, concentrate on correcting that.

If a satisfactory answer to this question cannot realistically be found in
Help, is the SldWks KB on the case?
If so, either do not post, or simply post a reference to the KB article,
including the number.
If not, go for it, and by all means rip into SldWks for this gap in their
documentation. I think these two places between them should be enough for
anyone to have to consult. SldWks have over the years progressively
fragmented the infobase and splattered it across an increasing number of
resources, NONE of which tries to be self-sufficient. I find this alarming.
They must think we're palaentologists, not designers and engineers.

I am not currently a subscription member, as a protest measure (largely
about product reliability), but notwithstanding I don't think we should set
up a parallel resource to the KB, thereby offering free access to a valuable
resource which is not part of the deal non-subscription people have signed
up to.

I don't have any problem with us giving away our own hard-earned knowledge
of SolidWorks, in fact I positively rejoice in it, but I draw the line at
giving away theirs; I believe it is and should remain their choice.

If you are one of the many netizens who fervently believe all knowledge
should be free, please do not flame me. I have given the arguments a lot of
thought, and respectfully end up disagreeing.

What I post here is not intended as a sermon, simply a point of view.

 

I think this is a good approach, but I think the best outcome would be that
the original author of the discussed text would read the opinions, and if
accepting the change, modify the original text & delete the comments. This
would help cut down on a person having to read all the discussions &
consensus of the group. Yes, there is some value in going through some of
the reasons behind whatever, but that's more what the newsgroup is, not
this.

WT