Re: Comments on posters and new template + ITS elipse (Re: Updated validation poster (Was: Re: [Minutes] MLW-LT call 2013-02-20, plus doodle for luxembourg prep call))

Am 21.02.13 21:13, schrieb Yves Savourel:
> I'm not against using it. I think it would be fine to have a common way to relate all use cases.
>
> I'm just afraid the current oval may confuse things rather than help.
> I show my new draft to someone and the first question was: "Why there is something about CMIS and NIF here, are you doing any of that in your process?"
>
> The outer circle was also confusing to my test subject: "Why the segmentation is on the XLIFF part? You are doing it before creating the XLIFF document."
>
> Maybe the oval is too specific to Dave's use case?
> If it was representing the sum of all the different things ITS can do and each poster would have little markers on the slices relevant to their process, (or thee slices relevant to them highlighted and the one not relevant dimmed, maybe it would be more understandable?

Very good points, Yves - and esp. the "test subject" approach is a 
useful exercise. The "marker suggestion" is interesting. Dave, do you 
want to give a re-design of the marker a try? Do others want to do a new 
version?

Best,

Felix


>
> -ys
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:55 PM
> To: public-multilingualweb-lt@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Comments on posters and new template + ITS elipse (Re: Updated validation poster (Was: Re: [Minutes] MLW-LT call 2013-02-20, plus doodle for luxembourg prep call))
>
> Hi Yves, all,
>
> Am 21.02.13 20:44, schrieb Yves Savourel:
>> Hi Felix, Dave, all,
>>
>>> One feedback from me: Marcis & all, can you also use the elipse with
>>> ITS in the centre, created by Dave? See
>> Just to be sure: what are we suppose to do with that oval?
> Put it on the poster and, that's all, that is: b).
>
>> (I also missed a lot of the discussion at Wednesday call because of
>> the really bad audio: sorry if I missed the info)
> Yes, sorry for the bad connectivity, my fault. Next time I'll use a different connection.
>
>> a) Change it completely to match our process and the data categories we are using?
>> Or b) keep it the same and somehow try to associate the different slices to our process?
>>
>> b) would result in something that probably doesn't make much sense
> Well, as Dave said: one role of the poster is to be input for reviewers
> - even broad guidance helps them a lot, since we can't expect that they follow our work closely. And it helps them to see that we *try* to create a relation between our usage scenarios.
>
> So if you (and others) think we shouldn't use it, we can drop it. But we then need to be prepared that a reviewer will search for broad (and of course not totatlly clear, I agree) guidance - and will find nothing.
> But whatever we decide: either everybody should use it or nobody.
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
>
>

Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 20:49:25 UTC