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

Andy Mabbett andy at
Thu Feb 9 14:57:57 PST 2006

In message <C0104AB1.68387%tantek at>, Tantek Çelik
<tantek at> writes
>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.

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

>> 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

>> 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
        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

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

        Say "NO!" to compulsory ID Cards:  <>

More information about the microformats-discuss mailing list