Thomas Ward:
My opinion on the core vs non-core definitions still stands
If someone can improve it, it's welcome.
Perhaps the exact definition doesn't matter that much, since there's a
standard procedure for determining if a package is core or not. So
probably giving an approximate idea serves the job.
Thomas Ward:
> That may apply to learning but has no place in a wiki, in my opinion.
I thought a wiki was a place for learning.
Thomas Ward wrote:
> It also only applies when the visuals are ***relevant***, and not
> with images just put there to add extra fluff.
If the visual is conceptually related with the text, it will make the
content easier to remember and more attractive to read; even in the case
it isn't explanatory.
Thomas Ward:
> The great example is textbooks - they follow this theory, but they
> ONLY follow the theory so much as the images added are relevant -
> extra fluff is not relevant and unnecessary.
If you take any textbook aimed for learning, for example those from
bachelor or high school, you will notice that they already use the above
technique widely.
Thomas Ward:
> Guys, come on, stop throwing grenades at each other, we had a whole
> email chain on constructive criticism requests eventually turn into
> hot shots at each other.
This is a topic I have been thinking for a while, and concluded I had
some vices. Probably Elfy has thought that we were about to fall in
those again, but I have at present abandoned the ideas that let to them.
If I bring this topic is not because small talking, but as this is
intimately related with what I decided is the most valuable thing I can
do right now in this project. It will put a small step ahead for making
users to manage bugs themselves.
Regards.
--
Ubuntu-quality mailing list
Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com
Modify settings or unsubscribe at:
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
