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

[Andy Mabbett]

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
>>> 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.

That's certainly one opinion, but you present it as a clear-cut matter
of fact.

>>> 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
                instrument:

>> which use widely-adopted
>>       standards
>
>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
person.

>> 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:

        common
        types
        easy to read
        by humans
        by machines

?

Or do you perhaps object to the examples?

>> 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.

I finds that the current statement is far from "nice", and lacks clarity
and accessibility.

Do you deny that micro formats are "simple and versatile, yet strictly
defined"?

Why don't you do a blind test, and show both versions to a couple of lay
people?
-- 
Andy Mabbett

        Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <http://www.no2id.net/>