Goofs in the docs

Last week I spent a major amount of time trying to use
ImageMagick for
my purposes (I almost succeeded, BTW).  Documentation is
usable, but,
of course, there is a lot of room for improvement.

a) The web look-and-feel:

       0) Tries to open everything in a new window.  Is
there at least
          ONE person who finds this beneficial?   :-(

       1) Navigation: time to time the option list, or a
tutorial,
          will refer you to an in-depth reference page about
a
          particular "feature" (I mean something
like "FX details").

	  Some time passes; you want to find this "in
depth" page
	  again - and it is very hard to do it.  One either needs
to
	  sift through browser history window, or go through the
	  sitemap (which, in turn, is not very prominent on the
title
	  page).

	  I think a separate entry (on the "left panel")
with
	  "reference pages on particular features" would
simplify
	  things a lot.

       2) I suspect I saw TWO different pages specifying
details of
          -fx stuff, but afterwards I could find only one. 
So I could
	  not check whether they were in sync...

       3) My version is 6.2.8-3; it took a lot of time to
realize that
          the bugs I see are just for things which are new
in 6.3.4
          (or whatever is the version documented on the main
page).
          Due to this (obvious in hindsight) confusion,
would not it
          be better to have "newer stuff" marked
as <new in 6.3.1> or
          somesuch?

       4) When in Firefox, the command-line-options page
acquires
          horizontal scrollbar (even with quite wide a
screen).  Is it
          a Firefox bug (1.5.* here), or an indication of a
misfeature
          with the page?

b) Details of docs (I had hundreds of complaints, these are
just which
   I can remember right now):

   -fx docs specify some mysterious %[fx:] and %[pixel:]
which are not
    mentioned again in these sections.  It took me several
days to
    realize that these escapes related not to -fx, but to
-format
    (right?).  I think this should be amended.

   -blur and -gaussian - are they the same, or different? 
What is the
    mysterious "radius and standard deviation
(sigma)" they mention?
    Assuming some sanity, -gaussian should take X_SEMIAXIS x
    Y_SEMIAXIS arguments.  Does it?

Thanks,
Ilya

_______________________________________________
Magick-bugs mailing list
Magick-bugsimagemagick.org
http://studio.imagemagick.org/mailman/listinfo/magick-
bugs