On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella <es204904...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Exactly. Stickynotes randomly at the end of a page are not relevant or even conceptually related. > > > 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. BUT they do not add fluff images or unnecessary images. They add what's necessary. They don't have a random picture of multicolored stickynotes on a wall unless its relevant to its topic. That isn't relevant here. ------ Thomas -- Ubuntu-quality mailing list Ubuntu-quality@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-quality
