>> I had a look at the mockup and I fear an ID: 1.4(21)2 is not easy to >> understand let alone speak. How would you refer to that? > > The point would be that we don't (at least in conversation!), the reference > would be the short-name / ID. True - out of habit I refer to SCs by number all the time... > > I'm suggesting that with the de-emphasis of the numbers, we use the same scheme > that we have now, so the new zoom one would be 1.4.10. Agree > > However, with the numbers de-emphasised, we could have the numbers out of order > and maintain the level-order, with the new ones at the bottom of each > appropriate level. (Or, within the level-order, would could then order them in > a more meaningful way. For example, the colour contrast ones come together.) Agree - there may be the issue with the current automatic generation of SC order and consequently, a manual maintenance penalty that Michael has mentioned in the call. > > Cheers, > > -Alastair >Received on Wednesday, 20 September 2017 14:17:09 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 21:08:16 UTC