Re: WSTF: draft features matrix

I think that the purpose of this list isn't as much to list new content but 
more to list new features or functions that we are goign to have one the 
webiste.  It's more new functionality that we are going to add to the 
website, like searches, dynamics calendars, login's, things that people are 
going to have to interact with. 

Like if the events calendar was just an events calendar, it wouldn't be 
appropriate to put it on this list. It fits on the list because the user has 
the ability to submit their own events for people to see on the calendar, 
it's a new feature versus new content. 

The feature's list originated with Michael so he would probably be able to 
tell best, but that's what I would guess should go on the list. 

Justin Thorp 

 

Shawn Lawton Henry writes: 

> 
>> From: Andrew.Arch@visionaustralia.org.au  
>>
>> #1 ID 2 "Build Your Own Style Sheets"
>> I had in mind something more akin to what the AFB
>> (http://www.afb.org/myafb.asp) offers - pick and chose the 
>> settings that suit your needs.
> 
> Ah, OK. Then, I'd say leave in ID 2 and fix the description, and add in
> the notes that link to AFb as an example. 
> 
> Also, for ID 1 ("Alternative Sytle Sheets") can put in notes example:
> "Select a Style Sheet (CSS)" at http://www.trace.wisc.edu/sitehelp/ 
> 
>  
>> #2 ID [new] "Index"
>> I think a good site map and a WAI search capacity are far 
>> more important than an alphabetical index. If we had a 
>> site-map, but no WAI search, I would still only rate this as 
>> low-medium.
> 
> ok with me. 
> 
> i got the idea when looking at different categorizations of things,
> e.g., having all the checklists under "C" and techiques under "T" - in
> addition to site map categorization. 
> 
> (note that WAI search might be complicated and have not yet figured out
> the feasibility of getting that soon...) 
> 
> 
>> #3 Is it appropriate to also use this list for additional 
>> content I think this is a good place to capture this 
>> information (maybe a separate Excel tab?).
>  
> 
>

Received on Saturday, 10 January 2004 18:49:37 UTC