On Mon, 4 Jun 2001 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: %< cut >% > Our Level 1 objectives > (http://www.lpi.org/http://www.lpi.org/p-obj-101.html and p-obj-102.html) > should provide a good outline for what form and style objectives should be > written in. I've modified slightly (including bullets for specified files > and tools covered) but the rest should be developed in the same fashion as > the current Level 1 objectives. There's no need to obsess over this step > at this stage, as I plan to have this completed in a stage of formal > review. I like to mention that the typical style of the current L1 objectives should not be followed. When written at the time, we tried to make them terse and often put everything in a single sentence - which sometimes get very long. Apparently that was overdone. Both from my own experience when advising training developers over the past 2 years, and from comments from others, it is clear that the current L1 objectives sometimes are ambiguous. They are going to be revised. Besides changes to the actual content, we will also consider to make them more elaborate and more explicit, and also change the interpunction to make them more readable and better understandable. So do not hesitate to break an objective into multiple sentences. I propose some guidelines: - Avoid a terse bulleted style, because then the text requires a specific formatting to be understood. This may not transfer well between the various formats in which the objectives will appear. - Use complete, grammatically valid sentences. Most people using the objectives will NOT understand English very well, keep this in mind when writing the objectives. So avoid American slang and idiom, and avoid both terse formulations as well as long, involved sentences. -- Tom Peters Director of the Board & Exam Development Specialist, Linux Professional Institute e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- This message was sent from the lpi-examdev mailing list. Send `unsubscribe lpi-examdev' in the subject to [EMAIL PROTECTED] to leave the list.
