Re: Compromise on Numbering: Changing 11 AAA numbers solves the level problem

>> 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.


> 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