Gervase Markham wrote:
> > Unless anyone can think of a good reason not to, I'd go with this. Seems
> > logical enough and can provide good cross-referencing between modules.
>
> I can think of several :-) (Well, I mean, [she] invited criticism :-)
>
> A good design for the site should have the following qualities:
>
> a) Obviousness. Given a document in your hand, it should be obvious
> exactly where in the tree it goes in the vast majority of cases. I believe
> that this design doesn't (yet :-) fulfil this criteria.
I made a few changes. Tell me if it helps (and of course, where more
could be done ;)
http://fantasai.tripod.com/Mozilla/2000/reorg.txt
> b) Balance. There shouldn't be root directories with two files in and
> others with 2000, without a good reason.
IMO, "Balance" shouldn't be a consideration. Comparing the hierarchies
can be a useful tool in determining whether some part of the design ought
to be looked over once more, but it shouldn't be a requirement to have
similar sizes. Most filesystem setups aren't "balanced", but that doesn't
make them any less organized.
> c) Split along the fault lines. The divisions should be where they are in
> people's heads.
I've explained where I see them in the notes section. If that's not
where everyone else sees them, then they'd better point me in the
right direction!
> > I'm sure if there are problems we can adjust this design to take them
> > into account.
>
> No, no, no :-) We finish the design as best we can _first_. This is very
> important. Otherwise you get cruft. You'll be surprised how quickly design
> decisions become very hard to change.
>
> > Next problem is to identify exactly what information we have currently,
> > and see if the above design works well with it.
>
> No again :-) We write a design which a) can encompass all the current
> information and b) provides room for expansion. We don't do a design and
> then try and fit our information into it!
Agreed on both points. Measure twice, cut once. XD
~fantasai
