I do see the FAQ on the documentation page, but I think that this needs to be expanded, in more detail, as it frequently takes too long to find things in the existing documentation.
Maybe I just don't use the right search strings to find what I'm looking for. On Wed, Aug 17, 2022 at 7:16 PM Kenneth Wolcott <kennethwolc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi; > > Dumb documentation question here: > > Kind of like a FAQ but also kind of like an index. > > So this would be a "translation" of layman's terms to > Lilypond/professional terminology and an index; it could even point to > existing indices (in Notation) and/or the Glossary. > > Q: Does Lilypond do X (layman's term/phrase)? > A: Yes, and this is the Lilypond description/verbiage/etc... > see Learning (precise section URL); > see Notation (precise section URL); > etc (Glossary, Snippets) > > Now, if I didn't have the correct terminology, I could still obtain > what I was looking for. > > Also, if the grouping or categorization of the concept is not where I > would expect it, I might not know where to find it. A text based > search of the HTML or PDF either does not result in any hits, or > incorrect hits or too many hits; this is very frustrating. The > Lilypond documentation is EXCELLENT, but I think that this might be > helpful for some people. > > Example: > > Q. Does Lilypond generate MIDI for articulations/ornaments (such as > mordant, prall, arpeggios)? > A. Yes/No; see articulate feature description. > > I think that this might help people who aren't high-level musicians > and/or high-level engravers navigate the excellent Lilypond > documentation. > > Now, I'd be willing to assist with a very simple beginning of this > Q&A/FAQ from a layman's perspective, perhaps on a text basis, using > some of my own questions on this mailing list with some of the answers > I've received. > > Is this a useful idea? Is it redundant/superfluous? It looks like a > lot of work to gather the info and implement within the documentation > format, but I'd be willing to try to add some value in my limited > knowledge. > > Thanks, > Ken Wolcott
