[development] New project vocabularies

[Bill Fitzgerald]

Case studies referencing projects via a nodereference provides a nice 
way of contextualizing how a module is used. While improved tagging (and 
active maintenance of the tagging structure) would also be helpful, 
seeing links to case studies that incorporate a particular module from 
the project page would be very useful. Of course, this list would be 
very long on project pages for views and cck, but that can be managed.

An aside here: the mention of e-learning as a category points at both a 
shortcoming of the tagging system, and (IMO) a misunderstanding of 
e-learning. Many modules on d.o have applications within online 
learning, even if it's not immediately obvious -- and the purpose of the 
categorization system should be to extend what is immediately obvious. 
While modules like quiz and gradebook have a specific elearning 
component, they are the exception. Pathauto and token are pretty 
critical for online learning sites, for exactly the same reason they are 
useful outside of a learning context.

Cheers,

Bill

Nathaniel Catchpole wrote:
> Tagging case studies - yes that makes sense - so then the hard node
> reference to the actual project (as opposed to a mention) means you could
> have a view of case studies showing all the modules used with direct links,
> browsable by tag.
>
> So in the right sidebar of the download and extend page, you still have a
> list like:
>
> Media
> Government
> Technology
>
> Upon clicking media, you'd see:
> -
> Warner Bros. | Views, CCK, Embedded Media Field | some other tags | date
> posted (or whatever)
> Some Record label | Audio, Panels
> Photo gallery site building howto | imagefield, imagecache, lightbox
>
> etc. etc.
>
> The advantage there is you get lists of modules which are actually used /
> documented, rather than lists of modules who's authors could be bothered to
> tag them.
>
> And yeah there's definitely no harm in having the vocabulary and trying it
> out for a while, I was just very fond of the showcase idea and didn't want
> it to get lost ;)
>
> Nat
>
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 3:11 PM, Gábor Hojtsy <gabor at hojtsy.hu> wrote:
>
>   
>> Then instead of referencing the nodes from the case studies attaching
>> taxonomy terms to the references, we can tag the case studies
>> themselves, and just have taxonomy lists of case studies on those
>> links, can't we? I mean if you'd use this data from actual case
>> studies, then why not show the modules in context, where the usage is
>> actually described?
>>
>> Note: IMHO we can remove the types of sites vocabulary always, if we
>> find it is not working well.
>>
>> Gábor
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 2:15 PM, Nathaniel Catchpole
>> <catch56 at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>     
>>> In the redesign discussions, we'd discussed having nodereferences between
>>> case studies, site recipes and projects for this purpose rather than
>>>       
>> tags.
>>     
>>> That way, people documenting how particular types of sites are built
>>>       
>> could
>>     
>>> show which modules they used - as opposed to project owners saying 'I
>>>       
>> think
>>     
>>> this might be useful for'. You could then show showcases and site recipes
>>> next to modules, and modules next to showcases and site recipes in a
>>> structured way (and with some data munging, get aggregate data if
>>>       
>> needed).
>>     
>>> Was this discussed as an option?
>>>
>>> Nat
>>>
>>>
>>>       
>
>   


-- 

Bill Fitzgerald
http://funnymonkey.com
FunnyMonkey -- Click. Connect. Learn.
ph. 503 897 7160