wiki-thon? Re: [uf-discuss] Microformats.org usability review
andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk
Thu Feb 9 14:57:57 PST 2006
In message <C0104AB1.68387%tantek at cs.stanford.edu>, Tantek Çelik
<tantek at cs.stanford.edu> writes
>On 2/8/06 3:44 PM, "Andy Mabbett" <andy at pigsonthewing.org.uk> wrote:
>> In message <e8ca2e110602081020yb2d0b21x382bad089b104cec at mail.gmail.com>,
>> Carl Beeth <carl.beeth at gmail.com> writes
>>> One of the potholes is in my opinion the little intro text on the home
>>> 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.
That's certainly one opinion, but you present it as a clear-cut matter
>>> 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.
"open data formats built upon existing and widely adopted standards" is
hardly "plain English".
>> How about:
>> Microformats are a set of tools,
>This is false. They are not tools.
It is not false; and they are:
tool: Something used in the performance of an operation; an
>> which use widely-adopted
>Mostly true. "built upon" is more accurate than just "use" though.
It is not more accurate, merely more verbose, and less clear to a lay
>> 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.
Which detail do you find superfluous:
easy to read
Or do you perhaps object to the examples?
>> 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.
I finds that the current statement is far from "nice", and lacks clarity
Do you deny that micro formats are "simple and versatile, yet strictly
Why don't you do a blind test, and show both versions to a couple of lay
Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards: <http://www.no2id.net/>
More information about the microformats-discuss