Re: Proposed improvements to the mailing lists archives

le ven 05-04-2002 à 22:43, Al Gilman a écrit :
> My main concern is that we reserve margin (some effort reserve) for fixing some things after we implement a larger scale prototype and expose it to more testers.
> 
> In the mean time I do think that this is now good enough we can take focused questions to selected second-round testers.  If you agree.  

I certainly agree!

> One known problem to mention.  The phrase "Periods list" is not good enough.  It is too hard to recognize what this means when reading it the first time, for example by tabbing through the page.  The following are synonyms, but I have yet to coin the phrase that solidly wins on combined compactness and clarity
>
> there are two things we want to convey, a noun and an adjective
> 
>   noun ~:: index | sub-archive | message collection
>   adjective ~:: by month | by quarter | periodic | for different calendar periods 
> 
> I guess my favorite as of the moment would be
> 
>   indices by [ month | quarter ]
> 
> This is of course short for "message indices grouped by [ month | quarter ]" but that much elision we can probably get away with.

I chose "indices by calendar periods" since I don't know if it will be
possible to specify programmatically the length of the given period.
I've added this as an open issue.

Regards,

Dom
-- 
Dominique Hazaël-Massieux - http://www.w3.org/People/Dom/
W3C's Webmaster
mailto:dom@w3.org

Received on Monday, 8 April 2002 09:26:00 UTC