Re: Queries in Getting Started workflows

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

--Paul R.

2013/2/14 Scott Rowe <>:
> (first raised in
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Scott Rowe <>
> Date: Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: Feedback from Berlin doc sprint
> To: Paul Rosenbusch <>
> Cc: "" <>
> 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
> <> 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 <>
>> >
>> >
>> > On 14 Feb 2013, at 14:52, Tobie Langel <> 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:
>>  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