Redesign of Technical Overview

Branch [archived branch] has been created by Author.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Wed Oct 22 11:57:45 2014 +0400

    1st step of Technical overview revision - preparation of a 1 page per module flat document and relocation of all other information to the Users' guides. User's guides have not been finalized and are in a Draft state.

Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Author.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Wed Oct 29 15:56:17 2014 +0400

    No-TO version has been merged with an updated visualization UG.

The technical overview has been revised to provide 1 page per module structure.
 
Most of TO content could be merged to UGs smoothly, but there still exist some questions.

Branch [archived branch] has been created by Author.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Wed Dec 10 17:24:29 2014 +0300

    The modified Technical Overview has been rebased to the current master.
    Modified the text of visualization section to make emphasis on newly added features. Better-looking images used.

Please review. This branch CR25390_1 modifies only the technical overview.
The transfer of its parts to User's Guides has been done in branch 23640.

Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Participant.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: szv
Date: Tue Dec 23 10:54:39 2014 +0300

    Some wording is modified

Please proofread my amendments, paying special attention to English wording - some not modified paragraphs still contain ugly English.

Branch [archived branch] has been updated by Author.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Tue Jan 27 15:50:51 2015 +0400

    Style and concision improvements.

I've reviewed (and mostly agreed with) amendments and made some efforts to improve the style.

Hi Sergey, would you please review the last version?

Dear szv,

I provided my remarks in the attached docx document. Generally I see 2 issues:

1. Some formulations in text were a bit weird to me, so check, please, my
   modifications and comments.

2. Quality of illustrations is not good on my opinion (also commented in docx).
   Of course, it is minor, but for official documentation, don't we want to
   have best quality?

  a) Some pictures were modified by manual changing of their backgrounds (!). It is very
     noticeable. I propose either to keep the original images or to redo the
     referenced material from scratch in Draw with properly established
     visualization properties (e.g. gradient background etc).

  b) I would also significantly reduce the image sizes as they consume a
     lot of space, providing very few useful information.

  c) Illustration with dimensions. For real CAD engineers, isn't it just ridiculous?
     In all contexts where I have ever seen dimensions, they are plotted in
     projection views, not in axonometry with just chaotic outlines.

Branch [archived branch] has been created by Author.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Thu Apr 30 15:58:34 2015 +0300

    The remarks by SSV implemented. Questionable images removed completely.
    The changes in the technical overview base on the current master.
    Additionally, some fixes in the modeling_algos UG

The remarks by SSV are implemented .
I completely agree that images need to be recreated using Draw taking into consideration that black background of images looks very poorly in web pages.

For the moment the questionable images are just removed.

If further changes are necessary, we can move on. However, it is necessary to integrate this patch in coming version 6.9.

Just few minor remarks:

1. Redundant trailing dot in "Basic interpreter of expressions facilitating the creation of customized scripting tools, generic definition of expressions, etc.;"

2. In all lists of the document you use different dash characters (sometimes long "--" and sometimes short "-"). Consider using — (mdash in HTML) special character instead.

3. If removal of problematic images is a temporary solution, then we need to have a dedicated issue in BT to return to it in future. Could you create it with a reference to the original document attached to this issue?

Note that "—" can be used only if it well supported by both HTML and PDF outputs

1. It is not redundant: etc. is always written with dot regardless of the sign which follows.
2. Is it really important?
3. OK

1. If so, the dot should be added in stuff like "etc).". Examples: http://grammarist.com/usage/et-cetera-etc/ and http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/23022/how-to-deal-with-abbreviations-like-etc-at-the-end-of-parentheses-which-are-c

2. Being not important, for me, it is still a culture of working with texts.

1. No, you are wrong. There are no parentheses. There is a semicolon. Dot is placed before a semicolon in such cases.

2. I've created a separate bug for this issue.

Branch [archived branch] has been created by Participant.

[revision removed]


Detailed log of new commits:

Author: Author
Date: Thu Apr 30 15:58:34 2015 +0300

    0025390: Redesign of Technical Overview
    
    Technical overview refactored; text duplicating information contained in user guides removed.
    Some images are regenerated for better presentation.
    Problems with formatting and section tags corrected in user guides.

Reviewed, please integrate. Note that I have made some changes (edited commit message, regenerated images using models from unknown sources, corrected warnings reported by Doxygen 1.8.9), the result is in branch CR25390_4.

Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.

[revision removed]

Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.

[revision removed]

Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.

[revision removed]

Branch [archived branch] has been deleted by Participant.

[revision removed]