| |
In lugnet.cad.dev, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> [...]
> But of course the train folks would have to like it too in order for it
> really to make sense.
(An aside -- lugnet.trains.org might become lugnet.trains.clubs -- see the
discussion in lugnet.trains for more info.)
> [...beeeeg snip!...]
> Whew. OK. Well, I don't love this last scenario to death or anything but
> it seems practical. Comments/opinions/criticisms?
OK, I've got it! Figured this out after resetting my brain last night.
Forget everything so far (except the local advantages & disadvantages of
various sub-options) and think about this:
What's are the most annoying things about lugnet.cad.dat (apart from the
fact that posting really large files is still broken)? What are the really
major problems?
1. Thread incohesion and group hopping
DAT files are found in .cad.dat, but all the followup discussions
are found in .cad or .cad.dev. So it's hard to follow the threads
without a very sophisticated newsreader or the web interface.
2. Thread mishaps
When you post a DAT file to .cad.dat, you have to remember to set the
Followup-To header to .cad.dev if you're posting a part, otherwise it
defaults to .cad, which isn't right.
3. Confusing legacy name
Not all LDraw or LDraw-compatible data files have or need have a .DAT
extension. As someone pointed out last week, the choice of .DAT was
somewhat unfortunate, but it stuck. Browsing the associated web pages
and seeing a link called "DAT Files" is completely unhelpful unless you
know that "DAT Files" means "LDraw data files" -- and that's too long
and clumsy of a name for the hierarchical browser interface -- and
"Data Files" is too generic. (Don't dispair; a better solution appears
later in this post. :)
Note that the lugnet.cad.dat group appeared quite literally overnight last
fall, after Gyug released the first version of LDLite. It *wasn't*
carefully planned, it *was* initially only an experiment, and no one had any
idea at the time how useful followup discussions could prove to be.
So I chalk up the .dat group as a "successful experiment" and am willing to
scrap it entirely and replace it with a better solution now that we know so
much more about where it can help take us. (Scrapping it means leaving the
existing posts in place for backward compatibility and historical references
but phasing it out of visibility.)
I believe it makes the most sense to keep DAT content and the ensuing
discussions as close together as possible -- that is, in the same group. A
single group for posting parts and discussing parts. Another single group
for posting MOC models and discussing MOC models. Another single group for
posting TLG set models and discussing TLG set models. Another single group
for posting part primitives and discussing part primitives. This completely
blows away problems #1 and #2 above, and avoids making people subscribe to
and check multiple groups for the types of content they're most interested
in. I'd be interested mostly in models and ideas, hardcore parts authors
might be interested mostly in parts and primitives. It also totally blows
away problem #3 above, as I'll show later in this post.
I see two [faux] disadvantages of bundling the data with the discussions:
first, these groups imply a decrease in the discussion-to-data ratio as
compared to lugnet.cad or lugnet.cad.dev, and second, they imply a decrease
in the data-to-discussion ratio as compared to lugnet.dat. This might sound
disruptive, but think about what it really means: Would you ever want to
read follow-up discussions about a model or a part without having seen the
model or part? Conversely, would you want to have to go elsewhere to read
or post follow-up discussions about a model or a part after having seen the
model or part? The first of these, if it really was a problem, doesn't have
an easy solution, although I suppose that a person could set up a newsreader
to automatically killfile DAT content. The second of these, although it is
problematic for browsing, only takes a change in the web interface to fix.
There could be a visual marker to help identify posts with DAT content, or a
filter to show only posts with or post without DAT content.
So here is a hierarchy that I would be very pleased to see:
Newsgroup name Webpage label
================= ===================
lugnet.cad CAD
lugnet.cad.dev CAD / Development
lugnet.cad.ld CAD / LDraw
lugnet.cad.ld.ideas CAD / LDraw / Ideas
lugnet.cad.ld.models CAD / LDraw / Models
lugnet.cad.ld.models.scenes CAD / LDraw / Models / Scenes
lugnet.cad.ld.models.sets CAD / LDraw / Models / Sets
lugnet.cad.ld.parts CAD / LDraw / Parts
lugnet.cad.ld.parts.prim CAD / LDraw / Parts / Primitives
lugnet.cad.ld.sw [R] CAD / LDraw / Software
lugnet.cad.ray [R] CAD / Ray-Tracing
All of the .cad.ld.* groups would allow the posting of DAT content, and .cad
(or at least .cad.dev) should probably continue to allow it as well, just in
case it's needed.
I especially like the way this fits in nicely with the current (today)
virtual category on the website for LDraw --
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/ldraw/
It would just be renamed to
http://www.lugnet.com/cad/ld/
to match the newsgroup names. The .ld.sw group is just a shorter way of
renaming the /cad/ldraw/tools/ virtual group to something shorter and more
future-expansible.
[R] in the list above means "reserved" for future expansion -- there'd be a
virtual group with a webpage but not a newsgroup initially.
Here's what the webpage for each newsgroup would show at the top:
Group's URI Group's Category & Sub-categories
======================== =====================================
/cad/ CAD
Development LDraw Ray-Tracing
/cad/dev/ CAD / Development
/cad/ld/ CAD / LDraw
Ideas Models Parts Software
/cad/ld/ideas/ CAD / LDraw / Ideas
/cad/ld/models/ CAD / LDraw / Models
Scenes Sets
/cad/ld/models/scenes/ CAD / LDraw / Models / Scenes
/cad/ld/models/sets/ CAD / LDraw / Models / Sets
/cad/ld/parts/ CAD / LDraw / Parts
Primitives
/cad/ld/parts/prim/ CAD / LDraw / Parts / Primitives
/cad/ld/sw/ CAD / LDraw / Software
/cad/ray/ CAD / Ray-Tracing
Thumbs up? Thumbs down?
Finally, it remains to place the ldraw.org discussion group at the most
logical location in this structure. Three possibilities:
a) lugnet.cad.org.ldraw
/cad/org/ldraw/ CAD / Organizations / [name-goes-here]
b) lugnet.cad.ld.org
/cad/ld/org/ CAD / LDraw / [name-goes-here]
c) lugnet.cad.dev.org
/cad/dev/org/ CAD / Development / [name-goes-here]
--Todd
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| Hmm. It may take a while for me to warm up to this setup. I actually like having the discussion of models/parts separate from the cad.dat group. When I hear people raving about a model I might find interesting, then I'm motivated to check it out on (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
| | | Re: lugnet.cad hierarhcy
|
| (...) I just took a few steps toward implementing the structure above, and while "ld" doesn't look too bad in the ng names, it looks *terrible* when it appears in a URL in the Location/Address boxes of NN & MSIE. :-( Compare: (2 URLs) it's because (...) (25 years ago, 24-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: newsgroup name for ldraw.org
|
| (...) Well, at the risk of sounding like I'm repeating myself, I really like the thought of a special group lugnet.trains.org for people to help plan and talk about how to set up more clubs like PNLTC and GMLTC. The .org. node is forward-expandable (...) (25 years ago, 14-Apr-99, to lugnet.cad.dev, lugnet.admin.general)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
