Re: Comments on posters and new template + ITS elipse (Re: Updated validation poster (this time with file attached)

Hi Dave and Yves, (sorry, this time with file ITS overview-v3.pptx attached)

I've reworked your 2nd slide, Dave, for Okapi, with my larger fonts, 
etc., leaving practically everything else the same. (Except I changed 
the tabs of the sectors you recolored from gray to white to also be 
white. Hope this is okay. Am willing to further work on this if either 
of you want.

olaf-michael

On 2013-02-21 23:43, Dave Lewis wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>