The River > Discussion (English preferably)



What do people think about creating and maintaining a River "wiki-manual"? I'm thinking we could structure it around the existing owner's manual and embellish it where we feel it's confusing, vague or could use some examples. I found that, while the manual mostly describes things very well, there are other places where I really struggle to understand or wish there was more information.

As an example, the explanation of "Dump Current" in the manual was very limited, but through experimentation I was delighted to learn that it not only stores singles, but multis, layers and effects as well. But now I'm curious how best to use these individual SysEx files. For example, from within the librarian software, can I build user banks by dragging and dropping them into open bank slots? 

Another helpful inclusion could be brief explanations of the general function and use full techniques of various dials as related to basic analog programming. For example, the FM dial. We know Laurent does a great job offering helpful hints in many sections in the manual, but the more the merrier. I realize there's a wealth of knowledge out there on the internet, yet not specific to The River.

Laurent, I hope I'm not out of place proposing this idea. Please let us know if you have objections. What do others think about this idea? We could simply start with a Google doc.

 :) ;)
That's exactly why I created the Wiki. It seems to me that all the rights are set up so that you can easily take control of the tool and I am at your disposal to modify what is needed. Same for bank exchanges etc...

Laurent, When you say Wiki, are you referring to this general forum? If there is a wiki specific to the manual, I did not realize that and thus my apologies.

Baloran: ? No ?

Yes, that's very close. But, what do you think about actually putting the owner's manual (exactly the way it is written now) on the wiki page as a starting point for users to add to add comments? You would instruct us NOT TO MODIFY your original text, but only to add to it. I think there is a benefit to structuring the conversation around the user's manual. The main benefit is the input is not just random topics in a chronological list, but structured in the way one would typically follow a manual. I think the owner's manual is natural place to add comments based on typical users' work flow-  as follows: 1) we're play and experiment on the River; 2) we have a question or curiosity about a function; 3) we read the owner's manual, but maybe it's not clear; 4) we try to follow the instructions, but need to experiment to gain clarity; 5) finally we figure it out; 6) now is when we add what we learned to the manual.  Does this make sense?


[0] Message Index

Go to full version