Re: Feedback sought on reorganizing the list of W3C Technical Reports

Le 12/01/2021 à 18:38, Tobie Langel a écrit :
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2021, at 13:21, Nigel Megitt wrote:
>> Realistically, for this human, 280 and 1200 are pretty much the same 
>> degree of "hard to navigate".
> 
> I second that concern. I’m actually wondering if this isn’t going to increase the cognitive load rather than lower it.

That's a fair concern (although I'm not sure the other approaches that
have been suggested so far fair better from that perspective).

> We had somewhat successfully dabbled in categorizing specs in higher level groups as part of the Coremob effort[1], though I would probably rename some of those categories today. I feel like getting to a more meaningful and manageable set should be a goal and is achievable.
> 
> I understand the maintenance cost of keeping something like this up to date, but making categorization a publishing requirement doesn’t seem an impossible burden on the editors.

I've been involved in many different efforts of categorizing our work,
so I absolutely don't disagree they can be useful; I haven't seen many
of these categorization efforts be sustainable over the long term, due
to a combination of the moving landscape in which the categorization
lives (taxonomies are processes, not states), and the lack of buy-in
from those best-placed to maintain the categorization. But both of these
could likely be fixed with better policies, incentives and tooling.

> I’m kind of bummed to see something so important rushed through a site redesign that’s been a decade in the making. Is there any way this can be given more time so we’re more sure of the outcome?

We absolutely can delay this decision (and at this point, this already
feels like the most likely outcome given the overall feedback I'm
seeing); the practical impact is that Studio 24 will be working on a
minimal redesign of /TR keeping the spec-by-spec basis, and the more
ambitious redesign would be conducted without their participation (and
so on a timeline of our own), and would start from the base components
available from the redesign.

And to be clear, I would be perfectly comfortable with that - I was
trying to see if there is enough value in the family proposal to bring
that in for the first phase of the redesign, but giving ourselves more
time to do it right rather than fast sounds perfectly reasonable. I
can't say who would be leading the more ambitious redesign yet, though.

Dom

Received on Wednesday, 13 January 2021 08:30:28 UTC