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

Scott Reynen scott at
Thu Feb 9 06:03:16 PST 2006

On Feb 9, 2006, at 3:26 AM, Tantek Çelik wrote:

> 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.

I don't think someone new to microformats cares about principles.   
They're interested in what microformats can do for them.  The  
principles come into play when designing a new microformat more than  
implementing an existing microformat.  I suspect 90% of people  
reading the intro paragraph are considering implementing an existing  
microformat.  They already have human-readable content, and they are  
wondering if it's worth the effort to make it machine-readable with  
microformats.  The intro doesn't even hint at answering this basic  
question, and I think this is a mistake.

Certainly Firefox was built upon some fundamental design principles,  
but those don't appear in the intro paragraph [1]:

"The award-winning Web browser is better than ever. Browse the Web  
with confidence - Firefox protects you from viruses, spyware and pop- 
ups. Enjoy improvements to performance, ease of use and privacy. It's  
easy to import your favorites and settings and get started. Download  
Firefox now and get the most out of the Web."

No mention of open source, cross-platform, modular design, nor open  
standards.  Just how will this help the reader.  Same with Atom [2]:

"Atom is a simple way to read and write information on the web,  
allowing you to easily keep track of more sites in less time, and to  
seamlessly share your words and ideas by publishing to the web."



More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list