wiki-thon? Re: [uf-discuss] usability review

Ryan King ryan at
Thu Feb 2 13:36:15 PST 2006

On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:34 PM, Ryan King wrote:
> On Feb 2, 2006, at 1:16 PM, David Osolkowski wrote:
>> On 2/2/06, Dr. Ernie Prabhakar <drernie at> wrote:
>>> Review/revise desired pathways for:
>>>         New users learning about microformats
>>>         Microformat lifecycle
>> Indeed, it does seem that people new to microformats are often either
>> entirely unaware of or somewhat confused about the process that  
>> exists
>> to create a microformat.  There have been a few instances of a
>> proposal for a new microformat being sent to the list with, for
>> example, no indication of current behavior or formats.
> Yes, this is a common occurrence. However, I just want to point out  
> that it has been getting better. When we first started  
>, it seemed like half of the people joining this  
> list would propose a new format almost instantly. We've not got it  
> down to about 1/10 or so. :-D
>> This is not an
>> accusation; I recall several people talking about how the  
>> microformats
>> process is a different way of doing things, thus it is reasonable to
>> expect people will be unfamiliar with it.
> Certainly.
>> Microformats-the-formats
>> have gotten a lot of recognition, but microformats-the-process seems
>> to be languishing a bit, when in fact they are significantly
>> connected.  I think we can do something about that.  At the least,
>> separate but clearly related (probably containing the word "micro")
>> names to disambiguate the two concepts could be useful.
> I'd be interesting to hear any proposals you have here. However,  
> I'm not sure you could really extricate

[hit send to early]

As I was saying... I don't think you can really extricate the process  
from the results. Certainly the philosophy/process could be useful in  
many contexts. Of course, I'd love to be wrong here.

Ryan King
ryan at

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list