On Wed, Jun 10, 2009 at 11:48:43AM -0500, James Simmons wrote: > Martin, > > First and foremost ASLO has to make sense to grade school kids and their > teachers.
Sure - I'm agreeing > That's why I didn't care for GCompris as a category. I didn't see that as an issue. > Now since we can give an Activity up to three Categories it might > make sense to have one for the stuff that comes pre-installed. Sure - I'm agreeing > Other than that, does any kid or teacher care who maintains an > Activity? Clearly you view the answer as "no" (I think in general, the right answer is "not unless they can get something out of that person", which is a distinct possibility in FOSS-land, so actually I think the answer should be "they should because it can help them"). I don't know what point you're making, expect possibly "we needn't care about aslo's coherency for anyone other than 'learners'". > Among ourselves we can make any taxonomy we like, but for the public > face of Sugar Activities we have to remember the target audience. Did you think I was saying the opposite? >> It'd be great if the classifications found happened to, or could be >> easily made to, be sensibly related to the classifications used for >> quite some time now: I hardly read that as "the classifications must be only what we already have". > Any discussion of taxonomy reminds me of grocery shopping on > Sundays. Well, I didn't start it :). > Whoever does the taxonomies for Jewel and Dominick's seems to have > no purpose in mind other than keeping me in the damned store as long > as possible. On the other hand Costco arranges stuff in reasonable > categories. Are you saying that we should design our taxonomy to get people off ASLO as soon as possible? If not, what? > James Simmons Martin
pgpgRrFYnIdMy.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel