Jonathan Cooper wrote: > On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 02:12:38PM +0800, David Nickerson wrote: >> Wilfred Li wrote: >>> Maybe instead of the star system, which may be open to interpretation at >>> first sight, an abbreviation or a specific word may be used to represent >>> its status? >> I guess that if you use something that looks fairly common and standard >> people will think they know what it means without looking for an actual >> meaning (i.e., the more stars the better), whereas if you use something >> a bit different (plain text or graphical) then people are more likely to >> look-up and try to understand the meaning and implications. >> >> The trick is that if its too different, then it may just turn people off >> all together... >> >> Maybe just a simple list of checkboxes with the labels: Level 1, Level >> 2,... would suffice? The labels could then be links to the appropriate >> definitions. > > I like that sound of that. Certainly you need some format where it is > possible to say that a model is level 2 without being level 1, which a > simple row of stars cannot express.
> Stars are probably still appropriate for the tool-specific displays > though: 1 if it loads, 2 if it also runs, etc. yep - I think thats still a good idea. And eventually you'd hope that level 2 curated models also satisfy level 1, but with the huge number of historical models we'll always need to support the case described above. it might also clear things up if there is just the appropriate number of stars rather than always having three and greying out the last one or two. _______________________________________________ cellml-discussion mailing list cellml-discussion@cellml.org http://www.cellml.org/mailman/listinfo/cellml-discussion
