headers
Ichthyostega | 10 Feb 01:43
Picon

Re: New Open Source Video Editor

> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [Lumiera] New Open Source Video Editor
> From: Ichthyostega <prg@...>
> To: General Discussion about Lumiera <lumiera@...>
> Date: 02/07/2010 12:17 AM
>> Lorenzo schrieb:
>>   
>>> BTW I can't recall if there was already some discussion about screenshots.. I
>>> think that there should be some cool screenshots even of the 'mockup'
>>> version...
>>>     
>> the only problem is: you won't see a visible difference to the last screenshot
>> published, as all work done meanwhile is happening rather well below the surface
>> :-)

Lorenzo schrieb:
> Sure :-). What I meant is have some screenshots (even if they are
> slightly /mockups/) they don't need to be updated each week ;) but a
> video editor is such a 'visual' software....

...as said, we /have/ these screenshots. They aren't even a mockup.
http://git.lumiera.org/gitweb?p=lumiera-propaganda;a=blob;f=lumiera_screenshot.png

What we really need is volunteers working on the website,
re-arranging the existing already asciidoced pages, writing summary pages, etc.

Of course, in addition it would also be helpful if the "workflow" related
things could be picked up. There is a started minimal workflow by Nikola,
there is the proposed TOC of a user manual (which is helpful as an outline),
there are some detail discussions etc.
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Lorenzo | 10 Feb 10:47
Picon
Favicon
Gravatar

Re: New Open Source Video Editor

Hi,
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [Lumiera] New Open Source Video Editor
>> From: Ichthyostega <prg@...>
>> To: General Discussion about Lumiera <lumiera@...>
>> Date: 02/07/2010 12:17 AM
>>     
>>> Lorenzo schrieb:
>>>   
>>>       
>>>> BTW I can't recall if there was already some discussion about screenshots.. I
>>>> think that there should be some cool screenshots even of the 'mockup'
>>>> version...
>>>>     
>>>>         
>>> the only problem is: you won't see a visible difference to the last screenshot
>>> published, as all work done meanwhile is happening rather well below the surface
>>> :-)
>>>       
>
> Lorenzo schrieb:
>   
>> Sure :-). What I meant is have some screenshots (even if they are
>> slightly /mockups/) they don't need to be updated each week ;) but a
>> video editor is such a 'visual' software....
>>     
>
> ...as said, we /have/ these screenshots. They aren't even a mockup.
> http://git.lumiera.org/gitweb?p=lumiera-propaganda;a=blob;f=lumiera_screenshot.png
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
andrew james | 11 Feb 22:41
Gravatar

Re: New Open Source Video Editor


>> No one is currently blocked by these things missing, but it would be
>> certainly
>> of benefit for the project (i.e. to do this discussions and planning
>> work) and
>> also for the visibility (because it could lead to more detailed mockups).
> Maybe asciidoc is a barrier for people to contribute? I know it's easy,
> yet still one has to learn it and many 'web-people' don't (?)
> Is there a way of templating it? Like some asciidoc guru sets up the
> structure (based on the mockup(s)) and then 'content people' can 'fill
> it up'?

work in progress to design user interface to uwiki (asciidoc).

the prewritten template structure you refer to is like 
something we plan to write in lumiera's asciidoc manual, put 
a link to the manual at every page where a user may write in 
asciidoc codes.

another useful feature planned is javascript controls in the 
browser (like the form to edit at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoe&action=edit&section=2) 
to automate asciidoc codes

other automation is key words, for example, the word 
'lumiera' is automatically linked and formatted 
emphatically.  user only types the word in plain text.

finally, I think there are only a few codes to write often, 
most are intuitive like * is list.  refer to most wikipedia
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Thaeter | 11 Feb 23:31

Re: New Open Source Video Editor

andrew james wrote:
> 
>>> No one is currently blocked by these things missing, but it would be
>>> certainly
>>> of benefit for the project (i.e. to do this discussions and planning
>>> work) and
>>> also for the visibility (because it could lead to more detailed
>>> mockups).
>> Maybe asciidoc is a barrier for people to contribute? I know it's easy,
>> yet still one has to learn it and many 'web-people' don't (?)
>> Is there a way of templating it? Like some asciidoc guru sets up the
>> structure (based on the mockup(s)) and then 'content people' can 'fill
>> it up'?
> 
> work in progress to design user interface to uwiki (asciidoc).
> 
> the prewritten template structure you refer to is like something we plan
> to write in lumiera's asciidoc manual, put a link to the manual at every
> page where a user may write in asciidoc codes.
> 
> another useful feature planned is javascript controls in the browser
> (like the form to edit at
> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shoe&action=edit&section=2) to
> automate asciidoc codes
> 
> other automation is key words, for example, the word 'lumiera' is
> automatically linked and formatted emphatically.  user only types the
> word in plain text.
> 
> finally, I think there are only a few codes to write often, most are
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Aaron Newcomb | 12 Feb 17:57
Picon

Re: New Open Source Video Editor

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Lorenzo <lsutton@...> wrote:

>
> Maybe asciidoc is a barrier for people to contribute?

Yes. Drupal would be a better choice IMHO. If the site were run on
Drupal I would consider chipping in some time on this.
--

-- 
Thanks,
Aaron Newcomb
http://www.thesourceshow.org
_______________________________________________
Lumiera mailing list
Lumiera@...
http://lists.lumiera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lumiera
http://lumiera.org/donations.html
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Christian Thaeter | 12 Feb 18:42

Re: New Open Source Video Editor

Aaron Newcomb wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Lorenzo <lsutton@...> wrote:
> 
>> Maybe asciidoc is a barrier for people to contribute?
> 
> Yes. Drupal would be a better choice IMHO. If the site were run on
> Drupal I would consider chipping in some time on this.

Checklist:
 [ ] Easily user editable (some markup)
 [ ] Toolchain for translating web edited documents to other formats:
     high quality printable: pdf, latex; Buildin help system, Manpages
 [ ] Documentation/Pages are generateable from automatic scripts
     (builddrone reports, extracted from sourcecode comments)
 [ ] offline editable and then syncronizeable with the server thereafter
 [ ] concurrently editable
 [ ] Being able to maintain the documentation in the lumiera source
     repository (merge back and forth)
 [ ] Low impact on server performance, static serving
 [ ] Reasonable secure, one doesnt need to apply security patches every
     week.
 [ ] We have someone who has the time to maintain it for the time coming

I think Drupal fails a lot of these requirements, asciidoc (and uWiki)
was choosen with this in mind, so this is a bit unfair competition. Some
time ago we concluded that we dont want an island solution for the
server which doesnt integrate with the community spirit of the project.

I really think asciidoc is and should be not the problem as far I see
its one of the most simple markup languages, You basically just write
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply |
headers
Odin Omdal Hørthe | 12 Feb 19:57
Picon
Gravatar

Re: New Open Source Video Editor

Drupal is not cloneable. Not distributed. So it's not a good fit with a project with the openness-goal of Lumiera.

We're breaking new ground on this, and I'm the first to admit it is hard. I could've had a nice community web page running build on Django a year ago, however - that is neither not easily clonable and distributed.

You should be able to checkout lumiera and get everything. Then you can work on the website on a plane, and merge when you get down - and ypu can always have the wiki easily with you right there in the source tree.

And if you'd ever want to excersize one of your freedoms, you can really clone the whole project.

I love the idea, but yes, it does make everything more difficult in the start right now.

And also, you must not forget that uwiki will enable hit-and-run people to extremely easily contribute patches.

You can open up uwiki with lumi source code, navigate to whatever file and fix that iriitating misspelling right away! It's damn easy, or rather will be. And it'll be integrated to the core of the lumisite.

Anyway; my phone lost all battery writing this so I bet it'll die soon again. ;)

But yes, I also think it is a big hurdle as I'm not used to it. I know django and wordpress and php, I would be able to learn drupal or joomla pretty darn quick because they are also databaseapps that use templates to render the pages, this is something totally different - and new, so it'll take some time to get good.

But I've got faith in it! ;-)

On Feb 12, 2010 5:57 PM, "Aaron Newcomb" <anewcomb2-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Lorenzo <lsutton-VGgt2q2+T+FeoWH0uzbU5w@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
> Maybe asciidoc is a barrier...

Yes. Drupal would be a better choice IMHO. If the site were run on
Drupal I would consider chipping in some time on this.

--
Thanks,
Aaron Newcomb
http://www.thesourceshow.org
_____________________________________________...

Lumiera mailing list
Lumiera-aLEFhgZF4x639dL7tAm8iNi2O/JbrIOy@public.gmane.org
http://lists.lumiera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lum...

_______________________________________________
Lumiera mailing list
Lumiera@...
http://lists.lumiera.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lumiera
http://lumiera.org/donations.html
Permalink | Reply |
headers
Ichthyostega | 12 Feb 20:57
Picon

Re: New Open Source Video Editor


> On Wed, Feb 10, 2010 at 4:47 AM, Lorenzo <lsutton <at> libero.it> wrote:
>> Maybe asciidoc is a barrier for people to contribute?

Odin Omdal Hørthe schrieb:
> But yes, I also think it is a big hurdle as I'm not used to it. I know django
> and wordpress and php, I would be able to learn drupal or joomla pretty darn
> quick because they are also databaseapps that use templates to render the
> pages, ....

Aaron Newcomb schrieb:
> Yes. Drupal would be a better choice IMHO. If the site were run on Drupal I
> would consider chipping in some time on this.

hehe guys, your statements are really surprising.
Databases, Applications which need to be setup, template languages are /simple/,
but Asciidoc is, well, what's it?

Maybe the fact that there is *no* huge complicated steam engine behind
asciidoc, which freaks people away. Maybe everyone is thinking, "well, there
needs to be a hidden apparatus somewhere for this to work, and I feel so deaf
because I can't find it..."

OK, irony aside. Actually there seem to be some hurdles, which are difficult
to understand for *us* (the devs). If so, we should try to find out.
I don't think that asciidoc is the problem, honestly. Doing a checkout via GIT
could be more of a problem for some contributors, but probably the most
prominent problem is that you need to do some new, uncommon things in order to
achieve an effect, and that you need to figure out how to do it precisely, and
even acknowledge the actions with other people.

But maybe we're all looking into the wrong direction, and actually it's not so
much hurdles, but a clear and attractive goal, which is missing. "We need a new
and better organisation of existing content" might sound quite abstract to some.
If the latter was the case, maybe we should try to get the most basic top-level
pages into the new structure quickly, be it even with a lot of TODO and FIXME
tags. A topic we could discuss more in depth at the meeting tomorrow....

Cheers,
Hermann
Permalink | Reply |

Gmane