GSIK: Proposal for restructure

[evanshultz]

trafficstars

Currently there are a few sections at the top which are nice, IMO. But after that, it gets unclear to me: -There's a huge Eeschema section which covers project creation, exporting a netlist, assigning footprints, generating a BOM, etc. It's monolithic. -Next is the Pcbnew section, which just covers designing the PCB. Generating and checking Gebers is a separate section, as is auto routing and annotation. -Then is the creation of schematic parts by a number of means and then making footprints. And finally a small note (which is a somewhat of a repeat of the Support section at the top). -Finally there are some notes.

The flowchart isn't especially clear, because it doesn't show project creation, shows two different ways to assign footprints, etc. (There are instructions to update this, I know.)

It seems to me that a few more sections would be helpful in showing the process, mostly on the schematic side. Here's my suggestion for re-arranging this doc starting at the "Draw electronic schematics" section (section titles not finalized, just the workflow): -Create project (KiCad manager) -Eeschema --Draw schematic --Bus connections --Annotate schematic --ERC --Assign footprints --Generate netlist --BOM -Pcbnew --Set up board (DRC, layers, etc.) --Import netlist --Place components --Lay out copper -FreeRouter (see below) -Design changes (Backward Annotation also included here) -3D viewer -Generate fab files (back to Pcbnew) -View fab files -Making components (few sections) -Making footprints -Send off

What to do with FreeRouter? Considering that project's current status, does this section get removed? Keep it as is, with polish as needed? Add note about Java version/dependencies?

I also find that titles using a present participle (-ing words) are more friendly, so I suggest changing "Generate Geber files" to "Generating Geber files". And also eliminating first person ("we, "let's") in favor of strictly second person ("you", "your") perspective.

Is there something wrong with this? It seems to me that breaking things down a bit more is better to show the process. Comments? Criticism?