• From: Rick JELLIFFE <ricko@g...>
• To: xml-dev@l...
• Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2000 16:29:42 +0800

James Robertson wrote:
 
> Is it therefore not sensible to do
> "usability testing" (involving real users)
> on documents?

Yes.  However, I doubt if anyone will fund
a comprehensive test program, pay for the
statistically valid number of test subjects,
write different versions of the manual to
trial which is best, etc. and finish before
December (to be in time for the REC), 
let alone in the next 2 weeks (to be in time
for the CR.)  
 
> Really, this list (with all it's best
> intentions) can solve this problem.

(I think typo for "cannot") Yes, but what
does that leave for the list to do?  Complain
unco-operatively in vague generalities? 
This may be fun (my favourite sport) and
we will have plenty of time for that after
the spec is out and it is too late.  

I wouldn't be asking XML-DEV-ers to make concrete
suggestions on the prose if there weren't
real chances of having them being considered.

Rick Jelliffe

• Follow-Ups:
  • Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• References:
  • RE: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: Linda van den Brink <lvdbrink@b...>
  • Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
    • From: James Robertson <jamesr@s...>

• Prev by Date: XPointer reference and tutorial
• Next by Date: Re: Unnecessary well-formedness constraint
• Previous by thread: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Next by thread: Re: Improved writing -- who's going to pay for it?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread