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

Following discussions in this thread in January, we reported to Studio24
that the proposal of using "spec families" had received some support but
also some reservations or interests in broader rethinking.

Given the timing constraints of developing an alternative proposal, and
given that Studio24 estimated the family grouping was still a
significant improvement over the status quo, they decided to adopt that
grouping in the first phase of the site redesign.

Taking that into account, as well as the additional feedback received
during our discussions, they have prepared a presentation that
introduces their proposed design for the TR page at:

https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1kZEv2Cf9W5kqG1fCGtP2CNQc9sVeZNuSlbRJvx_irHo/edit?usp=sharing

They're looking for feedback before this Friday (March 19).

Thanks,

Dom

Le 11/01/2021 à 12:55, Dominique Hazael-Massieux a écrit :
> Hi,
> 
> As part of the Web site redesign, Denis, Vivien and I have been looking
> at some of the approaches we could take to make the TR page easier to
> consume - with a goal of bring this  as input to the redesign Studio 24
> is going to bring to the page as part of the overall site redesign. This
> message concludes with a short-term request for feedback .
> 
> Part of the challenge with the TR page is that we have over 1200
> technical reports on the page, which makes it hard to organize and make
> sense of.
> 
> Denis and I have been exploring the idea of bringing more structure to
> the list by recognizing that a significant number of individual
> documents can be grouped into more meaningful sets, along two main axes:
> * specification series (level 1, 2, ...)
> * specification "families" where a given "technology" is split in
> different documents (e.g. XQuery & XSLT, OWL, RDF)
> 
> (in many cases, these "families" can be manually inferred from use of
> common shortname prefixes, or common title subsets - moving forward, we
> would want to put in place a more systematic approach to defining and
> tracking these families)
> 
> When using this approach, and ignoring obsolete technical reports (those
> currently advertised as "retired" on the TR page), a first stab at this
> grouping produces ~ 280 entries (to be compared to the 1200+ full
> list or TR ) which sounds like it should be easier to grasp, and in
> general, help bring sense to our past and ongoing work.
> 
> The said grouping is described in
> https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WlqmB1ZTUo-nqpZ-E_bMUHD_KCcHUC10c2uctsj9Cv0/edit#gid=0
> (exported as attached CSV as well) - this is based on TR data obtained
> on Dec 17.
> 
> Denis and I have been working on a wireframe-mockup of how a TR page
> reorganized along these lines would look like:
> 
> https://cdn.statically.io/gh/w3c/tr-pages/family-grouping/family-mockup/status.html
> 
> There is naturally a lot of improvements that needs to be brought to
> that design, but we thought it would help get a sense of what these
> families would enable.
> 
> We're primarily (and most urgently) interested in feedback from groups
> and spec authors on whether this is a reasonable way to organize the TR
> page moving forward. Given the timeline constraints of the redesign
> project, it would be great to get such *feedback before next Monday (Jan
> 18, 2021)*.
> 
> We're also interested in suggestions on how to improve the specific
> classification of specs proposed in the spreadsheet (ideally, towards
> reducing the number of families), but we have a lot more time for that
> work, on which we expect we would iterate on a more relaxed basis if
> this is indeed a viable way forward.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dom
>

Received on Monday, 15 March 2021 14:40:04 UTC