Fold Tutorials

[steve]

The fold tutorial area is begining to come together--Thanks everyone!

We do have some issues that we need to work out though.

Here's a problem: There is generally more than one way to do things, and I am seeing a tendency to give directions along the lines that the author does it--which is fine, but we need to find an approach that includes several methods and treats them as equals in terms of the flow of the directions. One example is the "stained glass" effect. Unformed Matter paints the darker color on; whereas, I dye the color as I do regularly, except the dark side is dyed more lightly In general, I prefer less composed and controlled approaches--but that's me). Still others use direct application on the main colors, then use immersion dyeing to apply the contrasting dark color.

What I want to do is provide the alternatives and write in such a manner that is presents these alternatives without bias. Let people decide for themselves which is best for them or what fits best with their approach to dyeing.

Another problem is how much detail do we give to each fold? Where do we decide to refer to other folds? Personally, I like the spiral fold format breaking it down into folding, binding, and applying the dye, along with variations.

Detailed photographs of the steps is very helpful to the unitiated as with the spiral (but that lacks photos of dye application).

We also need to edit and add to each other's pages freely. Nobody owns any pages in the wiki. Perhaps we can start using the discussion tab on each page to help communicate with regards to changes and needs for each page.

As far as final formatting--I don't want to get into too much nitty gritty because I really don't care much for tiki-wiki. It is quite bloated and somewhat buggy. Take a look at formatting in the Wikipedia. Perhaps we can set up a template for fold tutorials.

Enough for now--please think this all over and respond! If we work together, this could be an unparalleled source of information! It's getting closer each day.

Steve

[ecilA]

One thing that comes to mind in regard to the various ways people approach folds: why not just try to remember to use phrasing that indicates just this> "One way stained glass tie-dye is approached is by..." and the next contributor (or the oa) could then use "another approach is xyz" and as people contribute, more approaches will surface.

When I read the stained glass my first thought was how some people use one sided dark dye application which results in fatter dark lines and we could certainly mention that along with a picture illustrating the difference in this approach (or others).

[steve]

One thing that comes to mind in regard to the various ways people approach folds: why not just try to remember to use phrasing that indicates just this> "One way stained glass tie-dye is approached is by..." and the next contributor (or the oa) could then use "another approach is xyz" and as people contribute, more approaches will surface.

When I read the stained glass my first thought was how some people use one sided dark dye application which results in fatter dark lines and we could certainly mention that along with a picture illustrating the difference in this approach (or others).

Ah--right on the money!

I want to make it clear that no one should feel slighted by additions or changes to individual pages. I'm not into the right way or wrong way--or this way is better than that. Let all see the myriad ways and make their own choices!

Best of all we can provide illustrations of the results of differing approaches and the reader can make their own choice.

Keep talking!

Steve

[unformedmatter]

steve,
please refer back to the wiki: spider fold. i wrote that one up first, by adding to your tutorial by saying

"An alternate dyeing method is to...

and then gave my way of doing it.

then after that i wrote up the stained glass, because it can be done to any fold (i did up an awesome shirt for a christmas gift that way--chaos/stained glass), and i know lots of people know it by that name.

i actually was surprised that when i added to your spider post... it didn't put in some kind of tag, or line, or different font/color, or ANYTHING that the following was new content... or a new author. so i added the date, and started with "alternate"...(and the pic was a little bigger than i was going for... but i think visuals are key)

when i wrote the stained glass i was just trying to maintain continuity with the way other things had been written.  

quite honestly i don't think the wiki great, because as it grows you will have to hire someone full time with a photographic memory to watch over it and correct any grevious errors. (i corrected one on another DIY site, where someone gave a tutorial about how to tie dye. very detailed... in depth... explained how to use the urea to adhere the dye to the shirt (!!!) so, i added a post saying soda ash might be a better choice...

on that site, it clearly shows additions as such...

U.M.

[steve]

Yeah--I just saw that. Great! What I want to do is offer the various approaches as equal and let the reader decide because there are so many ways to achieve similar effects. We all need to add our takes on how to do a particular design if this is going to shine.

If you are looking for the variations and the history of additions to pages, click history. Most wiki software that I am familiar with does not denote the additions: dfwiki, phpwiki, pkwiki, tikiwiki, and MediaWiki. What software were they using? I'm interested in playing with a new wiki format!

Yes, I know wikis have their risks, but I am a big fan of wiki as a means of creating a vast body of knowledge quickly. If I had to type all these instructions up myself, it simply wouldn't happen. I have been pleased with the results here and in the wikis my students have created as a learning/study tool. Perfect? No! In general, I am intersted in shifting the Internet from read only to participatory

 Vigilance is important. Take the example of the Wikipedia. I check in on particular pages pertaining to topics in which I am knowledgeable regularly to check accuracy. Research has demonstrated that the Wikipedia is nearly as accurate as the Encylopedia Brittanica!

Thanks for contributing!

Steve

[ecilA]

Well I'm hooked! lol

(I know, that's nearly a wow...just sayin' )

Alice