My contributions to SC are generally quite small, mostly documentation adjustments e.g. spelling/grammar corrections, minor clarifications via rewrites, standardizing capitalization choices, etc. As some may already know, I created a tutorial in collaboration with @VIRTUALDOG which provides a walkthrough of the essential steps and, I think, is reasonably well described as a resource
In cases involving interaction with the SCDoc markup language & syntax, my instinct would be to reference an existing help document with similarly-structured content, and model any changes after it. The help documents you reference are certainly relevant, but I have relied on them minimally, in some cases not at all.
I know there’s a lot of discussion currently going on here, and I’ll reference one of your posts from this thread:
With regard to the items you describe as “difficult,” my reaction is that computer programming, in general, is “difficult.” It took me many years before I felt confident using SC and navigating the docs. Also, difficulty is subjective. What is easy for some is not for others. One of the challenges of teaching, and of developing instructive materials, is that recipients’ learning styles can vary significantly. The primary goal of SC documentation, in my opinion, is to document the classes and methods that make up the SC platform, while teaching is more of a secondary goal. Of course, it is sensible and good to including “teaching moments” in the documentation wherever appropriate, and such moments already exist throughout the documentation.
With regard to items that are “missing / unclear,” more specificity would be appropriate. A tutorial or documentation item you’ve designated as “missing” might just be one that you haven’t found yet, because it is categorized in an unexpected way. It is challenging to make every piece of information easily findable, because so many concepts in SC are interrelated.
Eli