CAR & Google Docs

[mjharper]

Thought it was about time I started a new topic on this, since it might get quite involved.

I've started putting together two pages of the CAR in Google Docs for integration into the website: the Introduction and the rules for the Basic Game.

Feedback would be appreciated.
__________
A couple of things I've noticed.
—First of all, I set up bookmarks and links to all the footnotes, and everything worked fine until GD completely forgot all the bookmarks I'd made. So I did the whole lot again, and the same thing happened. That could have been Opera. I haven't tried it in another browser yet—too demotivated by the endless destruction of bookmarks. (Edit #1: Switched to using Fluid—which is based on webkit, like Safari—and the problem hasn't recurred.)
—Also, although GD offers a number of export options, including PDF, it doesn't currently allow you to merge documents for export. The latest version of the CAR covers 70+ pages, which obviously need to be broken down here; but then it will only be possible to create—within GD—separate documents of each, rather than a single combined document of everything. GD will automatically zip several documents together in HTML format, which is something, at least.
—Edit #2: Images are a bit of a pain, because the text was added afterwards. The most efficent method at the moment is to screen-shot the image+text and upload that instead; but then we end up with the beautiful white backgrounds all over the place. But redoing the text in a light colour would be a hassle, and the arrows—which are black—are all from the original. And png/gif would result in a larger file anyway.
—Edit #3: The PDF export looks pretty good—not as good as before, maybe, but not bad. Sample here.
__________
So, does this seem like a useful thing to persue? And if so, what do you think would be the best way to continue—by perfecting one section at a time, or dumping the entire text into GD, straigtening it out, and adding images and so on later?

Also, who would be interested in getting involved?

[Scott]

IMHO, the sample PDF is not as nice as the original CAR. It lacks the polish and style of the original rules that came with the game.

I'm interested in getting involved.

[mjharper]

IMHO, the sample PDF is not as nice as the original CAR. It lacks the polish and style of the original rules that came with the game.

That's true enough. Google Docs just doesn't have the formating and style capabilities of Pages, or any decent word processor / DTP app for that matter.

I'll have to look into re-importing the material from GD into Pages. It might be possible to tweek the layout a bit.

However, given the choice between the closed, PDF-only and (fairly) well-laid out version we have now, and a more open, online but not as elegant version, which would you all prefer?

I'm interested in getting involved.

Appreciated.

[Joff]

Sorry guys, maybe I've lost the thread here!

Are 'we' suggesting that the CAR will no longer exist in its present form if the GD format goes ahead?  Of course I would be willing to help out where necessary if Matt (and the community) decides to go a different way, but I do like the new A5 format and the way it is presented at present.

[mjharper]

Sorry guys, maybe I've lost the thread here!

Are 'we' suggesting that the CAR will no longer exist in its present form if the GD format goes ahead?  Of course I would be willing to help out where necessary if Matt (and the community) decides to go a different way, but I do like the new A5 format and the way it is presented at present.

(moved from other thread)

As far as A5 is concerned, one of the simple exports from GD is as 'loose' HTML which should be easy to put into any format you want. But more specifically, moving to GD would most likely mean the end of the CAR on the current form. We'd be moving to a less capable online editor. The process of editing would be easier (becuase more people could be involved) but the end result won't be as pretty.

I can keep doing the CAR in the way it has been so far, although that will mean as slower rate of progress. The aim of the current GD discussions is just to illustrate how else it could be done, and see if that's what is wanted. There's advantages and disadvantages to each. I'm interested in what the community thinks.

[Gantry]

Matt I think you already know my position, we already have a content management system running the site with full html editing and if I upgrade to v2, PDF export & printer-friendly pages.  I suppose just the control of content on your own site is the only issue in this regard, which might be a dealbreaker as it has been in the past.

[Scott]

However, given the choice between the closed, PDF-only and (fairly) well-laid out version we have now, and a more open, online but not as elegant version, which would you all prefer?

I personally prefer the well-laid out version. I don't mind waiting for a nicer end product.

[Joff]

I personally prefer the well-laid out version. I don't mind waiting for a nicer end product.

I am with Scott on this one, although, as I said earlier, I am willing to assist where necessary, whatever route is decided.

[Novelty]

However, given the choice between the closed, PDF-only and (fairly) well-laid out version we have now, and a more open, online but not as elegant version, which would you all prefer?

I'd prefer the more laid out version as well.  Is there any other way of "group editing" that document?

[mjharper]

Consensus seems to be to stick with the original layout, and not go with GD. I've taken the page down anyway.

Group editing is not possible—unless you're a Mac user, in which case feel free to get in touch! The only option, if we're not going the GD route, would be to try Open Office, but that isn't a great option. First of all, I'm not convinced we could achieve the same quality of layout—which is why we're not going the GD way, after all—and it would be a nightmare to keep track of changes. For example, I would send Novelty the doc, Novelty would correct something and send it on to Scott, and meanwhile Gantry makes a correction in an older version. GD would have got around that problem well.

What I will try and do is get a 5.0 version up soon. It won't contain all the stuff I wanted, such as dwithworth's summaries, but I can add those gradually.

[Bixby]

I am new to this community and many of the ideas and issues being discussed here, but I felt I would be remiss if I did not thank you for the tremendous work that goes into that document. When we got our Big Box set along with most of the other expansions I found the document to be a super resource for making sense of rule anomalies and how various expansions interact. A big thank you from me.

*back to your regularly scehduled program*

[bignoseduglyguy]

I'm new to the forum but have a few suggestions for online collaboration.  I'm a little unclear on the criteria or functional spec required but there are a number of Web 2,0 offerings that might suit.

37Signals have a number of great collaboration tools including Writeboard
http://www.writeboard.com/

Zoho Writer is a pretty good offering too
http://writer.zoho.com/

These and others are cover in a brief review here:
http://webworkerdaily.com/2007/04/19/whats-so-difficult-about-online-document-collaboration/

Regards