Internet Book Information Center wrote:
> I like the idea of presenting some kind of automatic
> quality information a la Arthur's stars, but in addition
> to the gross overview (one star, two stars, three stars)
> I think many users (myself, e.g.) would find it more interesting
> to be able to click and see for themselves the detailed
> information that Arthur's program is using to assess
> quality (e.g. # of links in a page, amount of text, etc.).
I repeat my question implicit in an earlier posting: *how* should one
use such information as that, to determine quality? Are 20 links better
than 10? Probably.. but are 600 better than 20 - on the same page? I
don't think so. What would be the optimum number? And is some annotation
better than none? Probably. But this may make the page slower to load,
and harder to eyeball. And should there be many icons, or few?
So please tell me, is the idea to give 1 star per, say, 20 links? -
I won't mind this, so long as the program doesn't stop at the home
I think we should agree on what "quality" is first.
The WWW Virtual Library section on WWW Development ranges from how to
develop WWW pages, to setting up servers, to the evolution of the WWW.
http://guinan.gsfc.nasa.gov/Alan/Richmond.html WWW Systems Engineer
- Re: News...
- From: Internet Book Information Center <email@example.com>