[Design] Chandler in a Nutshell
mimi at osafoundation.org
Fri Sep 23 08:24:04 PDT 2005
Thank you for your additional comments Davor. Pieter has given me the
same feedback about consistency in language and we're reworking a
number of the slides to make them clearer.
I think this slide presentation will ultimately require a written
supplement in addition to the use case wiki page. Lisa Dusseault is
working on a Chandler Vision document that hopefully we'll be able to
combine with this deck.
The Facet and Hierarchy discussion comes from a 50 slide presentation
that is supplemented by a long paper that I'm currently reworking on
the wiki. So I'm not surprised that a lot got lost in trying to
concatenate all of that into 3 slides. It's helpful to understand
what confuses people and what doesn't though, so that we can devote
slide real estate to the right things.
Stay tuned for more updates to the deck as I will definitely be
interested to see if we're able to make things better.
On Sep 22, 2005, at 11:55 PM, Davor Cubranic wrote:
> Mimi Yin wrote:
>> I just saw your question about facets on the
>> ChandlerInFifteenMinutes wiki page. The relationship between Tags
>> and Facets is subtle and hard to explain and even harder to
>> understand, so I'm glad you brought it up.
>> Hope that answers your question.
> Yes it does -- sounds very cool. Thank you very much, that's a nice
> Would it be possible to explain the Tag-Facet difference in such
> concrete terms fairly early in your "fifteen minute Chandler"
> presentation? I think it may be a bit too abstract right now, and
> when facets appear in slide 10, I felt like I must have missed an
> important lecture and don't have a clue what's going on.
> One possible way to deal with this in a very simple way is to be
> more consistent in terminology. For example, the illustration on
> slide 11 talks about "grouping labels". This is basically promoting
> tags/labels to facets, correct? If it is, how about mentioning
> facets on that slide? I think it would really pull together many of
> the slides.
> Another presentation issue: I had a similar lost feeling when I
> came across the "bi-level hierarchy" in slide 13 -- it kind of
> appeared out of nowhere and disappeared just as fast, leaving me
> wondering if I'd just missed something *really* important.
> One last thing: I was reading user docs for Piggy Bank today
> (thanks to a mention I found in this list's archive), and the
> flexible reorganization that you mention at the end of the notes
> for slides 9-13 ("by project>by person") made a lot more sense. But
> will your audience know what you mean here? I certainly didn't when
> I was reading it yesterday, FWIW.
> I hope these comments are useful,
> _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
> Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list
More information about the Design