Re: Documentation (was Re: PIL 4 Just Arrived!!!)

[Daurnimator <quae@...>]

On 4 October 2016 at 03:19, Francisco Olarte <folarte@peoplecall.com> wrote:

Hi:

On Mon, Oct 3, 2016 at 6:41 AM, Paul Merrell <marbux@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think that optimally, documentation should always be "village
> idiot-tested." That is, someone who has no familiarity with the code
> should be tasked to use it, with careful note taken of the resulting
> questions that are not adequately answered by the documentation, then
> the documentation amended accordingly.

That's a worthy goal, problem being you run out of idiots ( happened
to me ). I mean, you need one person who has the technical level of
the target audience, zero familiarity with the actual code. Show him
the code, note the problems. But now that person is burned as he is
now familiar with the code, so you need another one, and after enough
iterations you've burned all the testers.

Francisco Olarte.

I wonder if there is a good place to source new testers for this sort of thing?

Seems like a good idea for a standalone website... if there is an audience of people just itching to read documentation