|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|OER Metadata : ContentInfobox comparison||0||14:16, 2 November 2009|
|Content reviews||0||12:42, 31 October 2009|
|Help wanted||1||22:09, 15 June 2009|
|Request for additional fields||0||18:49, 17 January 2008|
|Left & right justification||0||03:54, 15 January 2008|
|Thought about the info icon||0||03:51, 15 January 2008|
|Brent - great job on the info box||0||03:48, 15 January 2008|
|Bug or intended? - Variable width of Infobox||0||03:44, 15 January 2008|
Only minor differences. Should we pick one and combine them?
x to the left of the field name indicates this field is in both templates - look at the edit to see table prperly
OER_Metadata ContentInfobox | title= | align = x | description= x | description= | status= x | subject= | country= x | topic = x | sector = x | type= | sub-sector = x | audience = x | subject= x | sector = x | topic = x | level = | primary curricular area= x | complexity = | related curricular area 1= x | learning hours = | related curricular area 2= | rating = | related curricular area 3= x | creator = x | type= x | source = x | audience = x | license = x | level = x | tag1 = x | complexity = x | tag2 = x | learning hours = x | tag3 = x | creator = x | source = x | license = x | tag1 = x | tag2 = x | tag3 =
Trying new ways to get WE collaboration AND to address the findings in Randy's report about identifying content by level for adoption. Everyone can write reviews of any resources - in WikiEducator and elsewhere.
For content reviews, there needs to be a couple of minor changes to the ContentInforbox template. I took the liberty of making them.
Categories - include information about the field as well as the value - this will help group content and content reviews by Level, Subject, etc. It also indicates that these categories were generated by the ContentInfobox template.
- change the template so there isn't a big space above it on the display page.
- link all the field identifiers to the description of the field and suggested values. Should these link to the descriptions in the template? Or should there be a Help page for this?
- are there instructions for creating a page that lists all pages with either a particular category or family of categories? e.g., Subject:Science
Alison raised a good point. Maybe we should be using the ContentInfobox with just a sub-box for help wanted (like the buddy box for personal info boxes.
Looks like Wayne and Brent are the main updaters of the ContentInfobox. How would this fit with the intent of the ContentInfobox template? Is there a "process" for change requests? Do we need a general WE change request process and/or category?
Hey Brent -- I cant remember whether I talked about this on the IRC or posted somewhere else.
So apology for any duplication -- but want to make sure that I get this down somewhere.
Could we extra fields for:
- Keywords or Tags -- a place for authors to list keywords or tags describing the resource
- Learning hours -- i.e. the notional or intended time that a learner is supposed to spend on the resource, eg 1.5 hours
- Level -- The intention is to identify the level - so in the case of K12 we can say the year of study. Pre-primary could be < Year O -- Some countries have a reception year before official school starts which is depicted as year/grade "0" and year/grade "1" being the first year of school. For tertiary we could have a system say T1, T2, T3 and T4 for tertiary Undergrad and PG1, PG2, PG3 for years post base qualification.
- Complexity -- This is to try and capture some of the Bloom ideas you had earlier - but I'd suggest keeping it simple by only having three recommended options, for example easy, intermediate and difficult - this obviously relates to the level. So Intermediate for T3 may be used in T1 but will be difficult at this level if you know what I mean.
With this in place --- I think we have a pretty robust system in place with a couple of cool feature underneath the hood.
OK, re our IRC chat on float left / or right of the infobox.
I see the current deployment doesn't implement any text wrapping. Left and or right justification assumes text wrapping.
I like the idea of a text wrap -- and with right justification we get the "3 column" layout look going.
Any - take a look and see what you think looks best.
WikiRandy was in my office today -- and I was showing the ContentInfobox --
He suggested that it may be better to use the generic information icon - see for example:
I think this may convey the concept of "Infobox" better.
I'll have a play -- if you don't like it -- just revert :-)
Great job on the info box -
I saw it today, and think it's very cool.
I suggested to Wayne that we have a more identifiable way of 'identifying' the infobox....I suggested putting an "i" - for information - into the actual folder... but as you can see, he's pretty psyched, so he's gone ahead and done it himself!
I see that the width of the Infobox varies according to the text of "longest" row.
So for example, if someone writes a long description -- you will end up with a wide Infobox.
Wouldn't it be better to specify a fixed width for a consistent look and feel across the wiki. In the case of a long decrtiption, I think that it would be better to spill over to the next line.
Also - as we suggested on IRC, a smaller font will help conserve real estate.