OK, so I got pretty far along, and so at this point, I'm going to post this for
the general readership to look over and comment on.

It's unpolished, and incomplete, so there may be some gaps and spots that seem
to not have much context.

Looking for opinions on the renders, the layout, the flow, the readability, too
little / too much, additional information or related/subtopics to cover, what
code to provide in the actual article itself...

Anything I might have overlooked, not have thought of, or just not gotten too
yet.

It's longer than I thought it would be, and shorter than it should be?

Read-only LibreOffice odt format

Post a reply to this message

I guess this doesn't like the

> Read-only LibreOffice odt format

PDF is 6.5 MB, which is over the 5MB limit...   ugh

Post a reply to this message

OK, Let's try this.
Some free temporary storage.

BOTH PDF and odt   :)

https://ufile.io/f/uf5ve

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> OK, so I got pretty far along, and so at this point, I'm going to post this for
> the general readership to look over and comment on.
>
> It's unpolished, and incomplete, so there may be some gaps and spots that seem
> to not have much context.
>
> Looking for opinions on the renders, the layout, the flow, the readability, too
> little / too much, additional information or related/subtopics to cover, what
> code to provide in the actual article itself...
>
> Anything I might have overlooked, not have thought of, or just not gotten too
> yet.
>
> It's longer than I thought it would be, and shorter than it should be?
>
> Read-only LibreOffice odt format

I haven't finished looking it over, but the first thing that struck me was the
monospace font. Do you plan on changing that?

Post a reply to this message

Looks like a good treatise on the subject. Nice work.

I'm going through the pdf version page by page (I'm on page 3 so far, slowly
taking it all in.) Your writing seems clear and technically understandable. The
one problem I see is that the illustrations are kind of fuzzy, or low-rez, which
makes it hard for me to clearly follow the text and its technical details. Those
illustrations are important (for ME at least, to clearly grasp the concepts).
Perhaps this is simply some kind of conversion-to-pdf problem?

About the text font used (and apparently in the illustrations as well): I agree
with Thomas, a different font would be visually clearer. 'Arial' maybe? That's a
small quibble though.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:
> OK, so I got pretty far along, and so at this point, I'm going to post this for
> the general readership to look over and comment on.
>
> It's unpolished, and incomplete, so there may be some gaps and spots that seem
> to not have much context.
>
> Looking for opinions on the renders, the layout, the flow, the readability, too
> little / too much, additional information or related/subtopics to cover, what
> code to provide in the actual article itself...
>
> Anything I might have overlooked, not have thought of, or just not gotten too
> yet.
>
> It's longer than I thought it would be, and shorter than it should be?
>
> Read-only LibreOffice odt format

Helo, I did not read , and just looked, so the below remark is purely cosmetics
:-)

The fonts for page header and the final reference notes (maybe also page
numbers) tend to "clash woth the main content fonts. They would not need to have
the same styles at all, but those two styles are not a fit. there are many sites
that propose fonts that go well when combined together if you ask google the
question :

"what font goes well with courier for title"

Times, for instance, is one of the answers...  You could then try inverting
these title and content fonts and see which combination you prefer?
I like the two columns layout.

Post a reply to this message

"Kenneth" <kdw### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> Looks like a good treatise on the subject. Nice work.

Thanks   :)

> I'm going through the pdf version page by page (I'm on page 3 so far, slowly
> taking it all in.) Your writing seems clear and technically understandable.

Well, that was the goal, so - so far so good.

> The one problem I see is that the illustrations are kind of fuzzy, or low-rez, which
> makes it hard for me to clearly follow the text and its technical details.
> Those
> illustrations are important (for ME at least, to clearly grasp the concepts).
> Perhaps this is simply some kind of conversion-to-pdf problem?

Could be.   First time I'm really doing this.   There's an option in the
conversion-wizard window to reset image resolution - I'm using 300 dpi, maybe
I'll go up to 600 and see how much better that looks, and how it changes the
file size.
Some of the longer renders might have been done at 640x480 instead of 1024x768
as well....

The renders started out one way, and evolved over time, so there's a variety of
styles, colors, etc.   Curious about what works best and what doesn't - what
should be re-rendered.   What should be kept simple, and what should be given a
bit of raytracing flash to make it "pop".

> About the text font used (and apparently in the illustrations as well): I agree
> with Thomas, a different font would be visually clearer. 'Arial' maybe? That's a
> small quibble though.

I needed a font to use while writing and proof-reading.  Something to keep
things separated so that maybe things would pop out at me.  I might save
changing the typeface until last.  But it is of course one of the things that I
ought to get feedback on.

Post a reply to this message

"Bald Eagle" <cre### [at] netscapenet> wrote:

>
> I needed a font to use while writing and proof-reading.  Something to keep
> things separated so that maybe things would pop out at me.  I might save
> changing the typeface until last.  But it is of course one of the things that I
> ought to get feedback on.

Monospace fonts are great for editing. Proportional fonts are much more
readable, however.

It will take a while for me to digest the content though. I found it easier to
know what points I wanted on the surface and then calculating the bicubic
patches to connect them smoothly than to play with all the math, but I'm a wimp.

Uncle Josh
Pontificating on the web since 1995

Post a reply to this message