General Comments

Jump to: navigation, search
Edited by 2 users.
Last edit: 18:59, 8 June 2008

>>As suggested previously, prefer "Find" as a title.

David said he would look at your lifecycle representation. He did indicate that some word changes would likely take place at the very least.

>>"re-use" does not necessarily mean leaving it untouched, and I would hesitate to highlite that option.

I kept "re-use" in the sentence, but I did change the latter half to eliminate the phrasing about leaving things untouched.

>>In general, I would avoid using the word "you" in the text:

I understand both sides. I need to think some more about it. One of the interesting things about this project is the kind of tone people think the handbook should adopt.

Actually, as I read on, and get into the tone, it does seem appropriate, and Wayne's point above is taken:-). We might need to be a little careful: "you" can seem quite pointed at times and it is easy to make assumptions about the reader which may not apply. Would the following work work as a rule of thumb? In general, use "you" when trying to engage the reader and a more objective style when writing about OER and good practices.

Agree. If you find any cases where you feel the "you" is too pointy, feel free to make the necessary edits or flag it for me. --Sgurell 06:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

>>If the table approach goes any further, include a column for a quality comment.

The suggestion for a table approach has been brought up before. I wouldn't put the entire chapter into a table.

Perhaps structure the chapter around an ordered set of options for finding OER through an example "find scenario" (user story): own resources, search engines, general repositories, specific repositories, etc.) - i.e. tell a story. Include commentary on what to look out for in terms of relevance, appropriateness, quality and completeness. The chapter becomes the combined (blended and reworded) text of the current sections, and the lists of repositories become an appendix (tables). Kim 08:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I would definitely want some sort of comment box for quality (and other general information). Part of my hesitation stems from being able to evaluate all of the repositories listed in time for the print edition. I hate to sound like I'm stalling, but I'll need to think on it.

Write the chapter around the repositories you know well already, or at most, evaluate one from each category to flesh out the story. For the appendix we may not need to do comprehensive evaluations of all repositories listed - comment on the general policy/approach of each and indicate where a full evaluation has not been done (in which case the reader will need to apply principles we have outlined to do their own evaluation). Kim 08:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

That may be the way to go. I need just a little more time to think on it. Issue of moving to repositories in issue tracker. --Sgurell 06:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

>>These tables might be best placed in an Appendix - with live versions on WikiEducator.

I've thought of that, and I'm not sure why I hesitate. Perhaps because I feel they should have some exposure to the repositories before moving forward in the lifecycle (whatever form it may take). I'd interested to hear what Wayne thinks.

Sgurell (talk)11:06, 7 June 2008