Maybe there is a way to do this already without changing anything. Consider this:
The complexity of an example (project?) *may* be given by the amount of components it uses (just thinking out loud). But, if not accurate, it should be a really good approximation. So, sorting the examples by the amount of components it uses may be a short therm solution for this, if not a permanent one, until a consensus is reached. A slight change to the previous approach: assign each component a numerical difficulty and then compute the final score by adding the value of each component used. Then sort them using that value. We would then only need to assess the difficulty of using each component. I know this is not the most accurate solution, but it's much less intrusive. What do you think? On Apr 30, 2013 4:41 PM, "Tobias Boege" <tabo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, 30 Apr 2013, Beno?t Minisini wrote: > > Bbe more concrete of what "levels" you want, and then we can use real > > names instead of numbers. > > > > I'd go with the majority's observation: two levels, namely Beginner and > Advanced. > > > The current example grouping is arbitrary. You may have a different > > grouping for basic/beginner examples than for advanced examples or > > whatever else. > > > > Just make a list of examples, and then we can decide how to group them. > > > > Of course the above binary distinction will be different. To be honest, I > didn't yet look at specific examples to group them newly because my > cardinal > problem is to offer both: the arbitrary, topic-based grouping, because > we're > all used to it and it's just sane, *together* with the niveau-based one > which should help newcomers to pick the right source to learn from. > > Actually, the topic grouping will *further* help newbies to navigate > through > the examples according to their interest. Who would pick a Beginner example > from "Multimedia" without knowing about "Basic"? > > The best thing I could think of - in order to combine both views of the > example tree - is to leave the group display as is and sort all the > projects > according to their niveau level, i.e. Beginner or Advanced (maybe with a > visual separator between the groups, if that's possible?), and print that > level somewhere around the example's description. > > I'm still looking for people's opinions (or Bruce's criticism) to get a > representative consensus - maybe it's a flaw in our modern upbringing :-) - > because examples are things that all have to be content with and that I > don't want to change on the fly. (Sorry if this practice annoys anyone.) > > Regards, > Tobi > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET > Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. > Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead > Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. > http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 > _______________________________________________ > Gambas-user mailing list > Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Introducing AppDynamics Lite, a free troubleshooting tool for Java/.NET Get 100% visibility into your production application - at no cost. Code-level diagnostics for performance bottlenecks with <2% overhead Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes. http://p.sf.net/sfu/appdyn_d2d_ap1 _______________________________________________ Gambas-user mailing list Gambas-user@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gambas-user
