- From: Paul Rosenbusch <paul.rosenbusch.wpd@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:43:06 +0100
- To: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>
- Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org>
Hi Scott, thanks for moving this into a new thread - I still need to get used to the whole mailing-list thing :) As far as I see it, we could use the following properties: - Priority: This could be integrated into the current semantic form, maybe as a numeric value? - Difficulty / Skill required: What categories would you propose? Maybe this could also be added to the semantic form? - Domain expertise: Could we use Topic clusters or Topics for this? Maybe I misunderstood this - is the differentiation only required for API documentation itself and anyone can do examples, or are some examples far more challenging? I'm confident that I can finish the queries until February 23rd, but the interesting part will be to create input-fields for these properties and to set the correct values on some high-priority-articles. --Paul R. 2013/2/14 Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com>: > (first raised in > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-webplatform/2013Feb/0088.html) > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Scott Rowe <scottrowe@google.com> > Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM > Subject: Re: Feedback from Berlin doc sprint > To: Paul Rosenbusch <paul.rosenbusch.wpd@gmail.com> > Cc: "public-webplatform@w3.org" <public-webplatform@w3.org> > > > Hi Paul! > > I hope you're feeling better! > > Your excellent work can be used in our Getting Started work flows. One of > the ideas that Rodney Rehm had was that we need to set up our Getting > Started tasks according to domain expertise and skill required. So, you can > imagine a page set up for working in the API domain and a section of tasks > for developers, one of which would be contributing code examples and - bing! > - your list of articles requiring code examples. The developer just clicks > on a link to an article, and off they go. Same for the CSS domain. > > I'd love to be able to get this together in time for our next doc sprint - > February 23rd in San Francisco. Most of it is dependent upon me to work out > the Getting Started flow and pages. As I recall you had a few more things > you'd like to add to the queries, but as far as I can see, we can use them > starting now. > > Tell you what though, let's take this discussion into a separate thread so > as not to confuse the issue here. This thread was started to talk about doc > sprint participant feedback. I'll paste all this in a new thread. Stay > tuned. > > And, thanks again for the terrrific work here! > > +Scott > > > > On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Paul Rosenbusch > <paul.rosenbusch.wpd@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> The mailing list does not seem to publish my first message, so I'll >> submit it again just to be sure. I hope nobody gets duplicate mails >> because of this :) >> >> 2013/2/14 Chris Mills <cmills@opera.com> >> > >> > >> > On 14 Feb 2013, at 14:52, Tobie Langel <tobie@fb.com> wrote: >> > >> > > n Thursday, February 14, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Chris Mills wrote: >> > >> 1. Some people want to just look at site compatibility info, or code >> > >> examples. It would be nice to create the site in a way that people can >> > >> search to just bring up site compat info or code examples, and not have to >> > >> trawl through all the full reference pages. >> > > Sounds like this is something the test resource center[1] might >> > > partially be able to address. >> > >> > Perhaps, yes. >> >> During the docsprint I worked on semantic querys that list articles >> needing examples. Unfortunately I got the flu right after and could >> not work on it this week. >> >> I still need to document the whole thing and maybe optimize the >> output. Regardless of that, the template is usable at the moment. You >> can find an example implementation here: >> >> http://docs.webplatform.org/wiki/User:Paul.rosenbusch/Articles_needing_examples >> >> Where do you think would be the best place to put these tables? >> >> If needed I could also create a custom output format, but currently I >> have no idea which formatting would work best. >> >> --Paul R. >> >> >
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 20:43:40 UTC