- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2009 17:36:16 +0100
- To: Christine Golbreich <cgolbrei@gmail.com>
- Cc: OWL 2 <public-owl-wg@w3.org>, Jie Bao <baojie@cs.rpi.edu>
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 UTC