On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 11:42 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > On Mon, 3 Nov 2008, Jeremy Katz wrote: > > On Mon, 2008-11-03 at 10:36 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote: > >> Let's take a step back. How do we group several thousand things such that > >> they don't make the avg user lose his/her mind to look at them. > > > > Also, what are the circumstances in which people are using this > > metadata? What sort of interface are they expected to be working with, > > etc. We have tons of unstructured metadata (see package summaries and > > descriptions :-) > > > > The current comps format came about from looking at "okay, what are we > > trying to enable the user to do" and then working back from there. The > > same exercise but with the changed landscape that is present today is > > likely to be quite helpful in figuring out the best approach. > > > Well, to start with I was thinking of the flickr/blogger larger-font-size > tag browser with the ability to drill down per tag for additional info? > > So combining tagging with a tree? > > For example: you browse the 15 most common tags then you click on one > which opens up the 15 most common tags at that layer? maybe? and/or a list > of pkgs below that? > > Maybe that's crazy, I'm just playing with what it might look like based on > other interfaces I've seen. It might make sense -- it depends on what the context is that they're doing it in. If I'm looking to play a certain type of game on my installed box, yeah, I can maybe see that making sense. But if instead I'm looking to install a system, I'm not as sure that it does. And I do think that you want to have the same sort of groupings/taggings/whatever for both cases... that or we switch to a "we always install a large base set of stuff and then you can go in and tweak to your heart's content". But that suggestion tends to make server-type people come after me with pitchforks and fire ;-) Jeremy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
