Removing Priorities from Guidelines

This is a proposal from the editors that we remove the priorities from the
guidelines and just have priorities on the techniques.

RATIONALE

*	We have 17 guidelines at the present time.  Only four of which are
priority two and none of which are priority three.
*	The guidelines themselves aren't assigned a priority based upon their
merit.  They, in fact, inherit their priority as being whatever the highest
priority of the technique that is listed under them.

The result is that it is not entirely clear why one guideline would have a
priority one while another which sounds about the same would have a priority
two.  We also have situations where all of the techniques underneath the
priority are priority two except for one.  As a result, the entire guideline
ends up with a priority one.

We also have one priority where it is listed as a priority two, but it
should probably be a priority one in many cases.

As a result, we would like to suggest that we remove the priorities from the
guidelines and just have it on the techniques.  This would also remove the
paragraph immediately after the description of the priorities, which
awkwardly tries to describe why both the guidelines and the techniques have
priorities.

We will be releasing a new version of the guidelines later this afternoon.
In that version we have not removed the priority on the guidelines.  There
has been some re-organization and consolidation (see separate note to
follow).

Please look over this version and see whether or not it looks as if we would
do just as well (or better) to remove the priorities from the guidelines and
just maintain them on the strategies.

Thanks much.

The Editors


-- ------------------------------
Gregg C Vanderheiden Ph.D.
Professor - Human Factors
Dept of Ind. Engr. - U of Wis.
Director - Trace R & D Center
Gv@trace.wisc.edu, http://trace.wisc.edu/
FAX 608/262-8848
For a list of our listserves send "lists" to listproc@trace.wisc.edu

Received on Tuesday, 17 November 1998 13:42:21 UTC