W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-mw4d@w3.org > September 2010

Re: Comments on MW4D tools page

From: Christelle Scharff <scharffc@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2010 08:36:13 -0400
Message-ID: <AANLkTinnxbc+UePg2g_BSHUcLCUZDG8=9wwKz_ZF03r2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Max Froumentin <maxf@webfoundation.org>
Cc: public-mw4d@w3.org
Hi,

I think also that the definition of tool is important. In particular I
believe that the document covers lots of the aspects of SMS-based tools but
maybe not enough other types of tools (e.g., voice and platforms such as
Java Rosa for example). Are there some client apps that we could consider as
tools also?

Maybe a section on the extend of the use of the tools may be important. It
may be captured in the audience section. But we may want to add what
countries the tool is used in (# of countries also).

I think that once we agree on the criteria and organization we can probably
decide on a more visual representation of the data.

Christelle




On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Max Froumentin <maxf@webfoundation.org>wrote:

> The first thing that needs to be done is to explain what a tool is, I
> think. And why we're interested in tools more than the services using them.
>
> The same goes for some table row headings. The name 'category' is indeed
> misleading and it's not clear if 'transport layer' shouldn't be renamed
> 'channel' to match the roadmap. Perhaps those definitions should exist
> throughout all the documents produced by this group.
>
> It seems to make sense to primarily subdivide the criteria into "criteria
> specific to organisations using or deploying the tools" and "criteria
> specific to end-users" but looking the criteria themselves it's not obvious
> which they apply to: 'category' for instance. It impacts end users as much
> as organisations.
> Also: 'audience', 'end-user training', and others: some can be both
> end-user and organisation, others none. So in fact I think it's a false
> dichotomy and shouldn't be used as a top-level subdivision.
>
> Since I don't really see an alternative main subdivision, I would suggest
> staying with one table of all the criteria, and for each, specify if they
> apply to users, organisations, or both.
>
> Max.
>



-- 
Dr. Christelle Scharff
Associate Professor of Computer Science
Pace University, New York City, NY
Seidenberg School of Computer Science and Information Systems
cscharff@pace.edu
http://www.csis.pace.edu/~scharff
Received on Monday, 27 September 2010 13:39:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 September 2010 13:39:12 GMT