Re: New version of Quality Tips for Webmaster

Olivier Thereaux <ot@w3.org> wrote:

>On Thu, Apr 18, 2002, Karl Dubost wrote:
>>Olivier and I have worked on the page Quality Tips for Webmaster.
>>http://www.w3.org/2001/06tips/
>
>I think this will be a valuable help for web developers.
>
>However, I just got some feedback about it, in two points:
>
>- it would be really more useful if the tip displayed was "in context"

Yes, but this is not fasible to implement in practice. The best we can do
is to weight certain tips based on detected errors, but even that is too
much overhead to justify given the small gain.


>since it's not (yet) in context, it's disturbing that the new (well,
>future) version of the validator shows the tip exactly where the
>validation result used to be.

"disturbing"? That word carries rather strong connotations to me and seems
somewhat odd in the context.


The current code in CVS attempts to put the tip in a floating DIV on the
right side of the Validation Results (analogous to the QA floating
"Navbar"). The styling is a little half-baked and not really tested for
compatibility yet, but should give a fairly good idea of what I have in
mind for it.

The original version, however, displayed the Tip as a screaming yellow (the
same exact color scheme we use for severe warnings, BTW) stripe across the
screen where the Validation results used to be.

The version currently running on :8001 -- a version with no varranties; not
even that of being half-way functional at any given moment! -- is somewhere
in between. It's a couple of revisions behind what I have sitting on my
development box, but current CVS should be more or less up to date in this
area.

Comments and suggestions for improvement will be much appreciated. AaronSw
and sbp has already given much good input in this area, but anything you
can add I'd be delighted to hear.


>It would certainly be nice if there was at least a "longer-term goal" to
>make this tip-of-the-day chosen because of errors in the document that
>is being checked.

Yes, this would be nice, but at the moment I don't think this is feasible
to implement. It's theoretically possible, but the tradeoff just isn't
worth it. The scales might eventually tip the other way on that one, but
it's not in my crystal ball right at this moment. If you have any good
suggestions for how this might be done, given the constraints of the
current overall architecture, please do share! :-)


-- 
Yes, Micro$oft products work extremely well after you lobotomize yourself,
affect a zombie-like stare, and forever chant the "Micro$oft-knows-best"
mantra until your soul dissolves and you start believing all their crap.

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 19:16:24 UTC