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,
You are correct abut the details. It wasn't the intention that the 
sectors steps or the external formats labels are in any way canonical.

People should adapt the graphic to their particular workflow. As an 
example, in the attached file, I reworked the second slide to try and 
match the workflow you indicate on your poster, just by changing the 
inner sector names and the outer sector names/colours and angular 
coverage. I didn't in this example change the data category arcs as I 
wasn't sure which were involved, but I hope you get the idea.

As a further example, for slide 3 I reworked it again for the UL/TCD 
round trip.  Though it covers a lot of the same ground as the first one, 
I adapted the step sector labels and outer format sectors to better fit 
the narrative of the demo and remove item that are not feature of that 
demo (e.g. CMIS, PROV, RDF). Again David, this may not be completely 
accurate but it helps draw out both the differences and the common use 
of ITS of the different demos.

As I mention, though this is useful for the posters, it will be 
important as a visual aid in introducing and navigating between each 
demo in the Lux review, since there's a lot for the reviewers to take in 
within a small period of time.

The graphic is all powerpoint primatives, so it very easy to change by 
adjusting the text and sector angles - the only trick is to use 
gridlines so you can easily centre the sector and arc objects if you  
add or move them.

I'm happy to help others in adapting the graphic to their demo poster 
and pitch if they are stuff.

cheers,
Dave

p.s. I attached Olaf's version of the graphic with the larger lettering, 
but I haven't switched to it yet, since some of the new examples had a 
longer labels that didn't quite fit, just needs a bit of tweaking.

On 21/02/2013 20:13, Yves Savourel wrote:
> 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?
>
> -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
>
>
>