Talk:Creative Commons unplugged/The CC licenses

From WikiEducator
Jump to: navigation, search


Thread titleRepliesLast modified
Bottom of the page001:25, 13 December 2012
Discussion notes moved from content page013:35, 23 March 2011
Starting a page with text, not a header209:31, 20 January 2011
Introducing abbreviations for licenses116:19, 14 January 2011
Hiding the feedback in the activity316:58, 13 January 2011

Bottom of the page

It reads (Insert activity using each tool here.) after the PD paragraph. --Elitre 12:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Elitre (talk)01:25, 13 December 2012

Discussion notes moved from content page

Should we mention or at least reference CC's public domain tools? --Jane Park 20:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
We should always link back to the CC website, as it contains the most current information, ie. --Jane Park 21:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Hi Jane, great edits and thanks for your critical review on the CC tutorial :-). The concept of PD was introduced in the Copyright tutorial -- But I do think we need to reference the Public Domain tools and incorporate a high-level summary of PD - -eg its not a license, issues relating to copyright fraud with existing PD materials, the difference between the PD deed and mark etc. Yes where ever possible we must include links back to the CC site. That said, thousands of learners in the developing world will be using these materials in print format without connectivity - -so we must be sure that the core message is contained in the content. The print version will automatically generate footnotes with the full urls for off line learners who want to check out the sites when visiting an internet cafe. --Wayne Mackintosh 21:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Mackiwg (talk)13:35, 23 March 2011

Starting a page with text, not a header

My preference is to start a page directly with introductory text, without a preceding header. It seems to me that the first header is not needed on this page. The page is called the cc licenses and the first bit could get right into the terms used in the licenses, without the need for a header.

Thoughts? Alison

ASnieckus (talk)12:59, 19 January 2011

This is my preference as well -- perhaps this should be a style convention for this project?

It will also display better in print format avoiding a heading immediately following a heading without intervening text. Doesn't look good.

Mackiwg (talk)14:27, 19 January 2011

I was also thinking that this is a good general standard. I'll make the change and add it to the layout standards page.


ASnieckus (talk)09:31, 20 January 2011

Introducing abbreviations for licenses

We start using the abbreviations in the note below the table, so it seems appropriate to introduce the common type-able abbreviations in the table. I added these. It seems best to add them as an extension of the license name.

I'm assuming that the specifics of CC aren't discussed in the modules that will come before this one. Just thought I'd add this note here to point out this change.


ASnieckus (talk)15:42, 14 January 2011

Nope -- No details or specifics of CC discussed before this unit. Just some references and in the earlier tutorials I think we should use the full name. Yes I like the way you added the abbreviations in the table. It helps with conceptual association.


Mackiwg (talk)16:19, 14 January 2011

Hiding the feedback in the activity

Wondering if the activity would benefit if the feedback were hidden. We can do this using the Feedback3 or Feedback4 templates...see example at Multiple feedback in an activity template.

Using the feedback will help simplify the appearance of the activity questions, however, in playing with it, I wasn't able to keep the autonumbering...I think we'd have to hardcode the numbering (not a big deal).

Another advantage to hiding the feedback is for users to see the potential of wikis as learning environments.

Just a thought.


ASnieckus (talk)14:43, 13 January 2011

Hi Alison,

A good question and suggestion.

The issue I'm facing at the moment is to optimise the interface between the print and online versions. While Javascript based feedback is great for the online learner - -this creates another set of problems for automating the print versions.

Shall we park this one for the time being -- but note it as an issue that must be resolved. It will require technical intervention and we'll need to chat with Jim in terms of what is doable at this time.

As a minimum requirement -- for this iteration I will need to produce a reasonably professional print version for learners who don't have access to the internet.

Its a good thought -- just not sure we have the technology or resources just yet to operationalise this in the short term.

Cheers W

Mackiwg (talk)15:18, 13 January 2011

Right, that's makes total sense. Definitely park it. In fact, having the feedback viewable means less clicking for online users (an alternate benefit).


ASnieckus (talk)16:33, 13 January 2011

Its a good idea - -we'll get this one sorted when we land a big donor grant ;-)

Its interesting -- research done in the early days of interactive-text in the distance education context revealed that it didn't make much difference where the feedback to activities was placed and the general rule of thumb suggestion was to place simulated tutor feedback in close proximity to the activity. So at least we're not disadvantaging learners with this approach.


Mackiwg (talk)16:58, 13 January 2011