From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-02-20 09:39:05
Jim Douglas <jim_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> Beth Jacobson <bethj_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>
>>
>>>I like your list. It's a novel way of grouping the libraries compared to
>>>both mine and the existing categories, and I wonder if it might be worth
>>>including as its own page, but it's not really what I'm trying to do
>>>here. I've avoided the word "selling", but this is really what the page
>>>is about. I'm not trying to sell the libraries (I think they can sell
>>>themselves), but I am trying to sell people on the idea that it's worth
>>>their time to read more about them.
>>
>> I agree that your page does that better than prior efforts.
>
> Seconded...
>
>> But I don't think we can afford to have two categorized pages,
>
> My view is that the more categorisations the better. Beth's page deals
> with a scale of simple<->complex or concrete<->abstract. This one is
> classified by usage type. Both are valid and useful.
>
> The more signs we can post that say "Entrance", "Way In" or even
> "Ingress" the better (IMHO).
Only if they're clearly marked for what they mean. Beth's page deals
with at least 3 axes: simple<->complex (implementation, or for the
user?), concrete<->abstract, and functional categorization. If we
have 50 entrances and they're poorly distinguished from one another it
will only look more confusing.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com