W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-owl-wg@w3.org > April 2009

Re: QRG in pdf

From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:36:16 +0100
Message-Id: <22683B06-3910-4638-A5B1-41CC635E4A4F@cs.man.ac.uk>
Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
On 15 Apr 2009, at 17:17, Christine Golbreich wrote:

> 2009/4/15 Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>:
>> On 15 Apr 2009, at 17:00, Christine Golbreich wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps did I miss something, may I dare ask why the QRG is strictly
>>> limited to 2 pages in pdf? is that constraint so rigid?
>>
>> I think so. The design goal for the QRG is to produce a reference  
>> card a la:
>>        http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/_file_directory_/resources/94.pdf
>
> I remember, does it exclude 2 cards recto verso =  4 pages ?
> and even so, why should we be so rigid ?

I think the utility and usability of the document go down  
considerably when you move to 2 cards. Most reference cards I've  
worked with (in all fields) are 1 card and the ones that are more  
tend to be very awkward. Even 2 sides is less optimal than having one  
side (since you can mount a one sided card on the wall).

I think comprehensiveness is *not* a goal here...rapid access to the  
most useful stuff is.

So, to put it another way, I think there's a heavy burden of proof  
for going beyond 2 pages given the huge drop in usability. Feel free  
to make that case.

At the moment, I think a good layout can make it much closer to 2  
pages and a few cuts could do the rest. I trust that having 2.5 cards  
is obviously bad to everyone, yes?

Cheers,
Bijan.
Received on Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16:32:27 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 15 April 2009 16:32:27 GMT