[uf-discuss] microformats for normal people, like my mum

[Alex Faaborg]

> Therefore, uFs don't need a user-facing name - their
> applications do.

Right, we need a general user facing way of describing microformat  
detection, in order to describe the various applications (like Web  
browsers, feed readers and extensions like Operator) that let the  
user take actions on microformatted content.  For instance, this  
description would finish the sentence "features of Firefox 3 include  
support for offline Web applications, private browsing, blocking  
malware, and __[user facing way of saying microformat detection]__"

...data detection?
...semantic browsing?
...data browsing?
...semantic data detection?
...semantic data browsing?
...semantic data navigating?

If Operator and Firefox 3 are in a category of uF enabled  
applications, what should that category of applications be called?   
Or another way of putting it:

Feed Readers :: RSS
______ :: microformats

-Alex


On Jun 28, 2007, at 2:39 AM, Frances Berriman wrote:

> On 28/06/07, Pelle W <mejllistor at kodfabrik.se> wrote:
>> On 6/27/07, Tara Hunt <tara at citizenagency.com> wrote:
>> >> Although I heart the idea of language for non-experts, I'm  
>> wondering
>> >> how public facing Microformats, as a general term, is.
>> >>
>> >> I've thought about this before...I can see the specific  
>> microformats,
>> >> like hCard and hCal and hReview being public facing...and, in  
>> reality,
>> >> these are pretty descriptive. Maybe they just need some sort of  
>> iconic
>> >> marker (like RSS has)...which I think has been attempted before.
>> I agree with Tara here. Microformats is interesting for developers
>> because it tells us in what way the solution works but for my mum it
>> would tell nothing. My mom knows however what an address is and  
>> what a
>> calendar is and because of that it's the microformats in itself that
>> should be given common names like "web feeds" for RSS. I don't  
>> know but
>> have XML been given a humane name yet? Because XML is to RSS what
>> Microformats is to hCard.
>
> I concur on this line of thinking.  Microformats are the technological
> name - my mum should never have to come across the term any more than
> she should have to come across the term XML.  I think Operator does a
> good job of hiding the term in that it simply shows what you can
> actually do with data in the page (add this to my google calendar
> etc.).  Therefore, uFs don't need a user-facing name - their
> applications do.
>
>> If Microformats should be given a more humane name then that would be
>> something about semantics. Semanticdata perhaps - but it wouldn't  
>> make
>> anyone happier I think because the only ones who would be interested
>> would be those who already knows what Microformats is.
>> >> As far as talking about Microformats under one banner, I don't  
>> know if
>> >> the distinction really needs to be made. i think that may be  
>> what POSH
>> >> was trying to say: use plain old semantic html...but even that is
>> >> talking to developers and advanced content producers.
>
> I've said it before, but I don't think there's any need to reiterate
> what semantic HTML for is via *another* name, for developers. POSH is
> bad enough.
>
> -- 
> Frances Berriman
> http://fberriman.com
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-discuss mailing list
> microformats-discuss at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-discuss