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

Tantek Ç elik tantek at
Thu Feb 9 01:26:16 PST 2006

On 2/8/06 3:44 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy at> wrote:

> In message <e8ca2e110602081020yb2d0b21x382bad089b104cec at>,
> Carl Beeth <carl.beeth at> writes
>> One of the potholes is in my opinion the little intro text on the home
>> page:
>> What are microformats
>> Designed for humans first and machines second,

Note - the notion of focusing on human needs and behaviors first is actually
both quite essential for microformats and a huge distinction between
microformats and numerous other standards efforts which are focused on
"building a web for machines" etc.  Thus it is critical to point this out at
the beginning like this.

>> microformats are a set
>> of simple, open data formats built upon existing and widely adopted
>> standards. Learn more about microformats.

And those are also some direct summaries of the principles.  These are the
heart of what microformats are and thus I don't think it makes sense to
change this statement at all unless you can think of a better way to express
the principles in a succinct human-readable statement.

> How about:
>       Microformats are a set of tools,

This is false.  They are not tools.

> which use widely-adopted
>       standards

Mostly true. "built upon" is more accurate than just "use" though.

> to make common types of data (for example events or
>       licensing terms) easy to read, by both humans and machines.

I think this has too much detail for a short summary statement.

> They
>       do this by describing them in a simple and versatile, yet
>       strictly defined, way. Learn more about microformats.
> Of course, there may be more suitable examples.

Overall, I think this revision loses both the nice brevity and the precision
of the current summary statement.



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list