Enhancing the builder <--> developer relationship

We all know the offerings in the RepRap universe are pretty complex. Half a dozen firmwares, several Arduino IDEs, not all compatible to each other, at least three different host OSs, several host applications for these ... and that's the electronics side only. Newbies are confused and that's no surprise.

Many attempts have been tried to find a "standard" combination of these parts. Doesn't work, though, as this would not only be _very_ limiting to future developments, but also be a slap in the face of all the developers not being part of the "standard". Even if these efforts would be intensified, I don't think this can be brought to a satisfying end.

The only way out is apparently to talk to all the builders. Via wiki pages, tutorials, in this forum, by email, if possible with personal attention. Talk to them to find out how to improve the wiki pages, to find out where more intuitive technical solutions are required.

However, recently I experience more and more difficulties to get these builders to even describe their problem. "I tried and it doesn't work, what should I do?" - that's a typical help request. I'm lucky if I get noticed at all. Impossible to answer such questions and trying to start a conversation is often fruitless. These guys often have barely an idea of what they're doing (which is understandable) and feel stupid (without valid reason).

Question: How can we enhance this situation?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Perhaps a more modular approach overall would be better.

Frame Module (physical structure)
Motion Module (Steppers, belts, pulleys,leadscrews)
Electronics Module (Gen6, Gen7, RAMPS, RAMBO, Sanguino, etc)
Firmware Module (Sprinter, Marlin, Teacup, etc)
Software Module(Python, Pronterface, Repetier, Etc)

It might help clear up the confusion.

I know that this is a lot of work, but there are many subject matter experts (SME's) here and on IRC. Together this should be fairly straightforward to accomplish. After all, many hands make light work!

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

These forums tend to be my go-to resource in researching a problem I may be having. Unfortunately hitting the right search terms is difficult and the descriptions of solutions tend to be vague or "Nevermind, I fixed it.".

In the XDA-Developers community, it's common to have sticky posts in forums with a list of problems, procedures, etc. A community member is responsible for maintaining that sticky especially if it's their project. Their search system is good enough that few questions covered previously get asked, and those that do can reasonably be responded to by pointing to the search page.

I think a part of the problem is that a lot of people without technical expertise are building (or trying to build) repraps and expecting things to be plug and play.
I think most people who get into trouble on the build bought a "kit", with some expectation of an easy build and the kit documentation is probably incomplete or insufficient

A starting page on the Wiki that describes the various decisions and points to the relevant setup page on the Wiki probably wouldn't be a bad start, but I suspect the people who most need the help won't read it.

The existing solutions don't make explanations any easier either, trying to explain to someone whose never programmed how to set up configuration.h in Marlin or whatever can be at best challenging. The Marlin download page clearly states to use version 22 of the Arduino IDE and yet we see a ton of people failing to compile firmware because they've downloaded the 1.0 or 1.01 Arduino tools.
Trying to explain how to set the pots on a pololu is equally painful, when you explain that turning it up increases the power the first thing that happens is the end users turn them all the way up, see similar results and assume it's not the issue.

Much of the development is still towards more advanced features, but I think what needs to happen to cope with less technical builders is to push towards easier to more user friendly designs. Binary firmware distributions paired with host software with software configuration via a wizard would be a good start.
I don't know what the answer is for things like stepper drivers, maybe some sort of self calibration, though I'm not sure how that would work.

It would also be nice if there were some sort of validation/calibration test that could be run on a printer to rule out mechanical and configuration issues before trying to debug bad prints.

Here's my twopennyworth as a newcomer....I think you have a number of issues

You have a wide range of people who have different backgrounds (mechanical/DIY/Electonics/Computing/Materials Science etc) but RepRap is unusual in that you actually need some understanding of ALL of these which most people don't have and don't realise they don't have
The wiki is incredibly hard to navigate unless you know exactly what you're looking for - there is almost no structure there
The forums and website are quite creaky (time between page refresh etc) so people are put off searching if they aren't going to get a hit first time
...and lastly you have two many excellent people who are happy to answer the same question a hundred times rather than push people back to the wiki

Why not have a beginners forum with some stickied posts (closed so they don't become a long discussion!) (perhaps the categories akhlut sugests) that people might read before posing a question? I know that appears to be replicating the wiki but tbh the effort involved in making the wiki usable is probably not going to happen.

A sticky FAQ on the forum would be good. Perhaps it could even point to a big page on the wiki for "stable developments" or something like that. Even though there's constant bleeding-edge developments, there are a lot of aspects that are very common and very stable, like heated build platforms, RAMPS, Marlin, J-head, etc. For inexperienced new users who aren't for example interested in milling a heated PCB themselves, they could just look at that page, see the common case, and choose from among vendors listed there.

Off the top of my head, I can think of a lot of good, basic, battle-tested parts we can point new users to:

Frame: Prusa w/ threaded rods, MendelMax w/ 20mm extrusions
Linear motion: LM8UU bearings
Z-motion: threaded rod, leadscrews
Build platform: 230mm x 230mm Acrylic, MK1/2 heated PCB, borosilicate glass plate
Extruder:Jonas Kuhling's extruder
Hot end: J-head, MakerGear, Budaschnozzle, Ubis
Electronics: Printrboard, RAMPS, Azteeg
Firmware: Marlin, Sprinter
Host software: Repetier-host, Pronterface
Slicing software: Slic3r


I'd be happy to maintain this page and create it if no equivalent exists.

We need to hold peoples hands from the time they hit reprap.org to the time they print their first object. That means placing an exhaustive amount of information up in the wiki to educate people as quickly/easily/autonomously as possible. Break each section down into baby steps that a child can follow.

As Logrod said earlier, not everyone has the expertise 'out of the starting gate' to build a reprap. We need to fill in the gaps for others that we took for granted when building our machines.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

This post made me think about how the DEVs relate to new folks getting into the hobby.

Started a post here: [forums.reprap.org]

Thanks for all the answers, folks. I think many miss the point, though. Good newbie communications shouldn't mean: buy this, buy that. That's pointless, as all people having trouble have their parts already.

The point is how to get feedback and how to make discussing topics an enjoyable experience. 9 of 10 users never show up on IRC or in this forum, yet they google for a solution anyways. How can we find out what they have trouble with and what they intuitively expect? Because only if we know we can enhance products along with their documentation.

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

They're not missing the point, actually. Well, in my opinion at least.

Things look very different from "this side" of the fence than from an "outsider's" perspective.
Most people are impatient. They won't research first, they'll just jump in and hope for the best. If they don't succeed at first, *then* they'll come looking for help. And if they don't find the information they need, they'll just give up and you'll lose them forever. Which is really really bad for the project (despite what the more elitist among RepRappers might think).

What you're aiming at is making it easier to provide those people with help *once they fail initially*.

What some of the other posters in the thread were suggesting was - preventing that from happening *in the first place* by making it easy for them to "bootstrap" into the RepRap world on their first attempt. And that's a good idea, because it's often easier to prevent than do crisis management.

Take all of this with a grain of salt, though, as my own path to 3D printing was completely different (i've researched and googled and lurked for years before building my machine and refused to ask for help, thinking doing it on my own would result in gaining more experience).

orcinus Wrote:

> What you're aiming at is making it easier to
> provide those people with help *once they fail
> initially*.
>
> What some of the other posters in the thread were
> suggesting was - preventing that from happening
> *in the first place* by making it easy for them to
> "bootstrap" into the RepRap world on their first
> attempt.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Quote

What some of the other posters in the thread were suggesting was - preventing that from happening *in the first place* by making it easy for them to "bootstrap" into the RepRap world on their first attempt. And that's a good idea, because it's often easier to prevent than do crisis management.

Giving quick initial success is a good idea, but purchase lists simply don't work. Looking at the wiki, we get a new machine design not yearly, not monthly, but almost _daily_. And these new designs are the stuff which is showing up in the shops. So people inevitably have non-standard machine.

Quote

What you're aiming at is making it easier to provide those people with help *once they fail initially*.

There are different levels of failure. If one burns down his machine because he connected 220V to a 12V heated bed it's very likely he gives up forever. If the machine moves, but only 90mm istead of the intended 100mm, it's a failure, too, but it's also likely this guy looks for a solution.

So a good target might be to get down the expectations. Building a machine is fun on its own! Look at how many people have build blogs in other hobbyist areas and document every single step when refurbishing a motorcycle or building a plane. Setting such expectations is a good idea for RepRap, too! Else we should recommend people to buy 3D Systems Cubes or UP!s or MakerBot Replicators, because these definitely give an even faster success experience if printing it's self is considered to be the only valueable success.

Another worthwhile target might be to give smooth failure experiences. Put error messages into the software, design parts so they fit only in a single direction, and so on. Some (non-RepRap) softwares even put a contact address into their error messages.

Better?

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

Much better

I think most people flounder because unless you get one of the better kits, there is no such thing as complete documentation.
People read kit and assume it's like putting together a piece of Ikea furniture.
The problem is if I go buy a Mendel or MendelMax or any of the popular printers right now, from some seller on eBay, or one of the less well run kit providers, I have no idea what combination of parts I'm actually getting, and there will be no complete instructions for that part set.
At that point even mechanical assembly which I think most people with any patience should be able to do, can become a challenge for a first time builder.
Worse without pictures they often can't even describe the problem, or the parts.

The only way I can see to address this is to have a known good set of parts with explicit directions, but that doesn't help anyone who finds the site after they start a build.

Is there actually even a step by step guide for downloading, installing and configuring any firmware? I don't remember ever seeing one.

I do think there are obvious things we could do
Sticky solutions to the 5 or 6 most common problems
Provide stickies to walkthroughs for things like firmware configuration and calibration
Have templates or guidelines for newbies trying to report issues, so we at least get what printer, what firmware, what software
For print problems pictures of what good looks like and what common errors look like would probably go a long way.

I think the software side is somewhere we could just be a lot more user friendly, requiring people to edit and compile before running while very open is really not conducive to people who aren't comfortable with software development getting running with significant pain.

I'm sure traumflug will bring the idea down again, but that's exactly what i was aiming at with my comment.

What's needed is a "known-to-work", stable, periodically updated configuration with step by step instructions.
That can be printed out by the kit fabbers or linked to.

The usual oversimplifications *do not* apply:
- "configuration" does not need to be a single set of parts, thus, the argument of it ruining or monopolizing the market is moot
- "configuration" does not need to even list particular parts - terming them "compatible" and defining that compatibility would work fine (e.g. Ardumega+RAMPS compatible, Wade's compatible, Prusa HBP compatible...)
- fabbers must be made aware of the above two points (if they want in, which they probably will) so they can tag their products with the same "x-compatible" names and tags
- stable configuration does not have to be cutting edge or even be anywhere near the current "state-of-the-art" - it's an entry point for beginners after all

I'm sure many will frown on this idea, but something like a RepRap certification programme would be a good idea.
If a seller offers all the parts needed to construct the stabile configuration, their shop and their parts get to be tagged with a "Certified RepRap Beginner Kit UltraMegaPlusExxtraTurbo" badge which beginners can then find easily and be confident they can find all the needed and recommended parts in one place.

Since the only requirement for it is to be aware of the RepRap project/community (not an issue, for obvious reasons) and to offer parts that are as in accordance with the specs (again, not an issue for obvious reasons), there is no negative impact on the market. But RepRap gets a boost in "seriousness" in the eyes of beginners, average Joes and consumers AND there's much less frustrated people around.

Quote

Is there actually even a step by step guide for downloading, installing and configuring any firmware?

Like this one: [reprap.org] ?

Sure, there's plenty of room for making this easier. For example an application doing the Github download, compilation and firmware upload.

Quote

"configuration" does not need to be a single set of parts

We get closer, Sir

---

Generation 7 Electronics	Teacup Firmware	RepRap DIY

I like the concept of certification as long as it's not restricted to particular hardware in any way, but a reflection of the quality and documentation completeness.

The problem I see is who runs it?
Evaluating a reprap and documentation takes time, and there need to be clearly defined criteria if the process is to be fair.
If it's not fair, it's worse than nothing.

Quote

Like this one: [reprap.org] ?

Yeah pretty much though that doesn't for example cover the issues that people seem to have uploading firmware to say sanguino boards.
I think while we see the reprap as a collection of parts, electronics is separate to firmware etc, beginning builders don't see the distinction.

Polygonhell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think while we see the reprap as a collection of
> parts, electronics is separate to firmware etc,
> beginning builders don't see the distinction.

Hence a modular approach should work well to demystify he process to anyone looking to get into reprap.

---

- akhlut

Just remember - Iterate, Iterate, Iterate!

[myhomelessmind.blogspot.com]

Polygonhell Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I like the concept of certification as long as
> it's not restricted to particular hardware in any
> way, but a reflection of the quality and
> documentation completeness.
>
> The problem I see is who runs it?

Well, that's where (traumflug's?) idea of a RepRap foundation comes into play
And yes, the idea was for it not to be restricted to particular hardware. Otherwise you'd just have to link to that hardware or name it and be done with it.

This way, any hardware (or set of hardware) that fits criteria and is known to be "assemblable" into a "stabile" configuration gets certified as such.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/28/2012 06:48PM by orcinus.