Feedback on docs for Dragon, Standout, etc.

[madbean]

What do you guys think of the format on those docs? I decided to try InDesign for them instead of Word (which I really hate sometimes). It's not that much different than the old ones but InDesign sure does make some things easier. Is that format okay for you guys? Do want future docs to be even fancier? I'd like to step up my game in making things look more professional.

[jimilee]

I really dig that a lot.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[mjcyates]

Looks great to me!

[drog_trog]

As long as it has a bom, schematic, drill template and some info on the circuit then im happy.
It my be my eye sight but the font in the doc is too small for me.

[EBK]

I have to say that I don't like those docs.  I hope my reasons given below are helpful to you. 

My comments apply to all of the docs, I think, but I'm looking at the Standout while writing this.

The schematics lack part reference numbers.  How is someone supposed to talk about individual parts and ask questions while debugging if the parts don't have unique names?

The listing of the parts next to the PCB layout does not look terribly helpful, particularly when the position of the part text has no relation to the position of the part on the layout.  You appear to be missing headings that explain why the parts are grouped as such in the listing.

The BOM contains lots of red text and highlighted yellow text.  The reason for the yellow didn't immediately make itself clear.  The red is connected to the notes, but it would be far more useful to use note numbers so the specific relevant note can be located quickly when considering a particular BOM item.

The voltage overlay on the PCB diagram is cool.  Consider, however, placing the values over a white box to remove the background image overlap with those voltage numbers.

Further, regarding the use of colors, consider printing the docs out on a black-and-white laser printer and evaluating whether the relevant information is still conveyed in the absence of color.  Additionally, consider whether readability suffers when the colors are converted to grayscale on paper.  Personally, I always build with a printout of the docs in front of me, and I only have access to a laser printer.

[madbean]

Cool, this is really good feedback. A lot of your complaints are rooted in the weird way I've had to put these docs together.

The schematics lack part reference numbers.  How is someone supposed to talk about individual parts and ask questions while debugging if the parts don't have unique names?

I agree that is frustrating. The PCBs themselves don't have part numbers, only values. From a production standpoint it makes a lot of sense since you don't want to have to reference values when you are trying to build a bunch of boards. The schematics in those docs are my own re-draws b/c the original ones are not at all readable. So, I've had to go through each one, break all the nets apart and figure out how things are connected then re-draw them in a way that can be easily read. To try and match part numbers on the re-draws and then re-create the PCB layouts with part names on it is simply not feasible. At least, not in any reasonable amount of time.

The listing of the parts next to the PCB layout does not look terribly helpful, particularly when the position of the part text has no relation to the position of the part on the layout.  You appear to be missing headings that explain why the parts are grouped as such in the listing.

Those are images that Peter provided. The list indicates the order in which he suggests the parts are populated on the boards. It's not really how I do things (I always start with resistors, then diodes, then caps, etc).

The BOM contains lots of red text and highlighted yellow text.  The reason for the yellow didn't immediately make itself clear.  The red is connected to the notes, but it would be far more useful to use note numbers so the specific relevant note can be located quickly when considering a particular BOM item.

Yup, I could do something different than the red text to make it more specific. Good idea. The yellow highlight is just to mark out the 2.5mm spaced parts but I didn't spell that out.

The voltage overlay on the PCB diagram is cool.  Consider, however, placing the values over a white box to remove the background image overlap with those voltage numbers.

Can do!

Further, regarding the use of colors, consider printing the docs out on a black-and-white laser printer and evaluating whether the relevant information is still conveyed in the absence of color.  Additionally, consider whether readability suffers when the colors are converted to grayscale on paper.  Personally, I always build with a printout of the docs in front of me, and I only have access to a laser printer.

Another good idea.

[madbean]

Ohhh...here's an idea. I could try to make the schematics (on future docs) interactive. Like, if you mouse over a part it highlights a certain section of the schematic and gives a brief explanation what that section does. If you click on a part it highlights it on the PCB layout so you know where to look.

Don't know exactly how it would be done in InDesign but I bet I can figure it out!

[EBK]

Those are images that Peter provided. The list indicates the order in which he suggests the parts are populated on the boards. It's not really how I do things (I always start with resistors, then diodes, then caps, etc).

I'm just nitpicking here, as this has nothing to do with the formatting, but the statement, "For optimal results, install components in the exact order listed," seems odd to me.  It is not clear what the word "results" specifically refers to or why the order must be exact.  It almost reads like a warning/caveat rather than a suggestion.  *shrug*


I should probably ask if you are looking for suggestions on content in addition to formatting. 

[gordo]

That's just Peter being...well, Peter.

Having built the Dragon and the ill-fated Tiger from just Peter's docs I think nearly anything is an improvement but I like EBK's ideas.  I was just going to say I liked the layout and pretty much leave it at that.  The smaller text is a tad small but minor point.

[matmosphere]

They are readable, but I generally either just print the bom or the schematic when I'm building.

This is not specific to these docs but have you considered listing the drill spacing in mm's or inches. Like saying these controls are x inches apart on center horizontally. I guess I'm assuming eagle might already give those numbers but I'm not sure. I generally take the measurements of the board before I populate it. I haven't had good luck just using templates.

[jubal81]

InDesign is really useful for artwork and planning, too.

I export everything from Eagle at 300dpi. When you import to InDesign at 300 DPI it's seamless and to scale. You can design pedal graphics, but what's also really useful is designing the PCB graphics in InDesign (Vectors and fonts, especially), saving as BMP and importing to Eagle at 300 DPI. Scaling is perfect match.