Glossary: Know Thy Dev Talk

There is a ton of content to learn in C2. Even with all the thorough work put into the manual, there's still a lot of content that will go over the head of all but the most experienced indie developers here. Understandably, the Scirra Bros can't spell out every little detail in the manual. That would be far too many bunny trails and tangents when addressing all the features in the program.

But it would be mighty helpful if there were a glossary with more in-depth explanations, illustrations, and "beginner level" terminology to help drive home what all these (often) advanced terms, concepts, and features are.

WebGL? IAPs? ...and many more. What are these things and how can the indie beginner (or maybe even the more experienced) developers make sense of them to make the most of C2?

I think a glossary with links to keywords in the manual would help greatly.

well doesn´t the search function do the same, or am I a little of track ?

I actually think getting the beginners to do some search by themselves will help them a longer way in the end.

And Beaver is right, using the search function of the manual do take you to the relevant articles. And if it doesn't, than maybe a more global internet search will bring light to the "obscure" language we use.

If you're still lost after having searched (which might happen) it's OK to ask the meaning of specific terms.

Nevertheless as you present your request, it sounds like double-job with what's already in the manual.

That makes sense. And while I agree that a broader internet search is well within reason, my concern is that it can be very difficult to find resources that are beginner-level friendly. Experience and ability varies with every person here, but my hope was to provide something "local" where it's (hopefully) less intimidating and "refined" to the realm of C2 at most. Still, I do see how it could present more work than might be necessary. T'was just an idea.

"I actually think getting the beginners to do some search by themselves will help them a longer way in the end." ...

While I can certainly appreciate this, at the same time, for a product billed as 'great for beginners' -- it is very cumbersome to this 'just learn by searching through the site' ... the data here is not well organized, and some of the tuts reference obsolete data. Plus, given the variety of individuals that write the tuts, the format and presentation of information is also very inconsistent. At some point this will turn off beginners. ... this is my biggest frustation with this product. (For example, I posted a beginner question about 'best practices using variables' .. and was just referred back to the manuals and tuts that I have already read. )

I also took a quick look at Rhindon's profile, and he has been using this product for 1+ years, and is recommending better presentation of information?! ... Maybe there is wisdom is what he is saying.

kbtbc - I agree with you, but just in case you weren't aware - FRIENDLY FYI - Scirra is basically a three-man team. That's perhaps what Kyatric was hinting at when he mentioned "double job". They've already got an extensive manual set up. That said, though, again, I agree. Some things seem to be assumed. While I do go out and do non-Scirra searches for information not in the forums, tutorials, or manual, some things just aren't presented at beginner level. I can't fully imagine how hard it is for the Scirra team to do what they have already done, though. We've got to give them props for that, at least.

I apologize if I come across unfriendly. I think you made a very helpful suggestion based upon your own experience and just find it frustrating (because I was able to relate to my own user experience) that it was so quickly dismissed.

Obviously C2 is a good product, and kudos to the creators. I kindly and politely still wish for better presentation of educational resources, too.

kbtbc - Naw, man. You're fine. I was just trying to make sure I, personally, didn't sound unfriendly. I surely didn't want to accidentally seem like I was insulting your intelligence or telling you something you might have already known.

In short, I was just highlighting both sides.