German tutorial for school teachers (mainly aimed at Gymnasium level)

[sagetrac-navigium]

As discussed in this sage-devel thread

https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/sage-devel/ZvN_rtDavnk

I wrote a tutorial for German school teachers on gymnasium level on how they could use Sage to do the calculations they need for math on this level.

The attached patch creates a section called "thematische anleitungen" in the German documentations, similar to the "thematic tutorials" in the English documentation.

CC: @pdehaye @haraldschilly @nexttime

Component: documentation

Author: Beni Keller

Reviewer: Paul-Olivier Dehaye

Merged: sage-5.10.rc0

Issue created by migration from https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/14550

[haraldschilly]

comment:4

I've started to look at it briefly. The first issue is, that as far as I know no images are allowed. They bloat the already largish Sage codebase by something which can be replicated at any time. I don't know the best solution w/ regards of – for example – the interactive help, but it's certainly example possible to include the plotting command as an example without showing the plot.

see: http://sagemath.org/doc/tutorial/tour_plotting.html

[sagetrac-navigium]

New patch without pictures

[sagetrac-navigium]

comment:5

Attachment: trac_14550_gymnasium_tutorial.patch.gz

Ok, removed the pictures again. I just included them today because there were some part that were hard to understand without visualisation. But of course this works without the pictures, also it's not the best solution as long as the document isn't accessible in a interactive mode.

I thought since there are thematic tutorials in the English documentation containing pictures, this should be fine.

[nexttime]

comment:7

Is this still mostly work in progress, or should we set it to "needs review"?

[sagetrac-navigium]

comment:9

Sorry, I forgot to set it to "needs review". This isn't work in progress, it's a finished document. (Which doesn't mean that it can't be extended, but it includes everything I planned to include in the beginning.) I also gave it to two people to read and review before posting the patch - again, this doesn't mean that there isn't still a odd spelling mistake here and there.

[pdehaye]

comment:10

On its own, the patch is good. It passes all the tests when I doctest the files in that folder. I would mark it as positive review, except for the patchbot's complaints. Apparently the doc didn't build in the later patchbot tests, which trips other unrelated tests (because of search_src).

Probably explained by ongoing experiments with the patchbot, see
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/sage-devel/vGBz9MeUV4U

[pdehaye]

comment:11

Accepted (see https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/vGBz9MeUV4U/discussion )

[sagetrac-navigium]

comment:12

I see that one of the tests that fails is a complaint about non-ascii characters. Since this is a German document, it needs non-ascii characters. Is there a way to tell the patch bot that this is a utf-8 document other than starting the documents with

.. -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

?

[nexttime]

comment:13

Replying to @pdehaye:

Accepted (see https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-devel/vGBz9MeUV4U/discussion )

? That thread refers to patchbot testing.

Do we meanwhile have a spell- and grammar checker plug-in as well? ;-)

(Müsste jetzt in meinen Notizen graben; OTOH: Definitiv wenige Typos, aber z.B. "Zahlen -> Ziffern", inkonsistentes "[Gg]raf*" vs. "[Gg]raph*", und paar inhaltliche Sachen...)

[nexttime]

comment:14

Oh, just noticed I somehow missed Paul-Olivier's previous comment ...

[sagetrac-navigium]

comment:15

(Müsste jetzt in meinen Notizen graben; OTOH: Definitiv wenige Typos, aber z.B. "Zahlen -> Ziffern", inkonsistentes "[Gg]raf*" vs. "[Gg]raph*", und paar inhaltliche Sachen...)

Lass mich wissen, was korrigiert werden muss (abgesehen von dem schon genannten).

[jdemeyer]

Reviewer: Paul-Olivier Dehaye

[jdemeyer]

Merged: sage-5.10.rc0