Tássia Camões dijo [Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 12:49:32PM -0300]:
> 2011/4/15 Andreas Tille <[email protected]>:
> >
> > s/Abstract/Short Abstract (for use in schedule)/
> > s/Description/Full Abstract (for talk team evaluation and proceedings)/
> >
>
> Don't you think 'short' and 'full' abstract are a bit confusing?
> What about this:
>
> Event title
> Short description (one sentence long, for schedule and report)
> Abstract (for penta)
> Long description (optional, could also be a paper for proceedings)
> Additional notes (for orga team)
Hi,
I'm looking into this - I don't have a better suggestion than what you
gave, but I still feel it has to be improved a bit... We currently
have (mapping to your suggestions):
- Event title (one row) → Event title
- Event subtitle (one row, optional) → Short description
- Abstract (text area) → Abstract
- Description (text area) → Long description
- Resources (text area) → Additional notes
And they basically map well to your suggestions. Still, what you
mentioned as "Abstract (for penta)": What would it mean for somebody
not versed into DebConf? I do feel Andreas' original suggestion to be
more apt - The description provides more space for expanding the
information entered in the abstract, not in the subtitle.
Some numbers for this: In past conferences, out of 684 events
registered so far (regardless of their nature), we have:
Present Absent
Title 684 0
Subtitle 439 245
Abstract 496 188
Description 302 382
Resources 88 596
So all of the public optional fields _do_ get a high usage percentage
(and "resources" does not). Of course, that does not mean "resources"
is least useful (only that most people don't need it). But I do feel
the "description" field is mostly redundant.
Do you feel as I do? Would you object if I just disappear the
"description" one, instead of arguing whether it extends the abstract
or the subtitle?
_______________________________________________
Debconf-team mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
