Keep in mind this page is an experiment. There are some time considerations with generating it, though I think I can do it.
>>Looks slightly better with tags.
I understand why, but I wonder if small text is too small for some and may be a too much if they are reading over several repositories (such as the "All Rights Reserved"/restricted access/traditional copyright repository page. I would be interested to see what Mackiwg has to say.
>>Is the columnn "Number of Resources" useful? - Too many unknowns.
I agree that there are a lot of unknowns. One thing to keep in my is that educators have no idea how large some of these projects are. You and I know that Connexions and Wikiversity are large projects, but does the reader? I agree that it is a problematic column because every repository has their own metrics, but I think it could provide valuable information.
If we didn't do "Number of Resources" what would you recommend (keeping in mind discussion below)?
>>Consider colour codes etc. - ratings, educational level(s), topic focus
Ratings would be too difficult and I don't want to trigger any flame wars. Educational level would be hard to assess quickly enough to make it into the handbook (plus it is somewhat dependent on the school system and location). Topic focus would be difficult as the general repositories don't always have a topic focus. Wikiversity happen to have more of one topic than other, but it would not constitute a focus. They may have a preferred format (encyclopedia article, lesson module, etc.) and perhaps that could be added in this version of the handbook (there would be some time investment).
In a browser the user can change text size while browsing. So, small tags not needed.
Good luck with the printed version.
Perhaps keep the column flexible and provide any available info that might help characterise the site.
e.g. number of resources, number of registered users, edu level focus, "rigorous quality control", "ocw-like", "wiki-approach", etc. - so it is not really an attempt to "rate" or compare, just a little more than the description.
For this edition, the fact we have listed it means it is worth looking at.
>>e.g. number of resources, number of registered users, edu level focus, "rigorous quality control", "ocw-like", >>"wiki-approach", etc. - so it is not really an attempt to "rate" or compare, just a little more than the >>description.
I'm going to experiment with type of repository e.g. "wiki-approach" "OCW-like" etc. I'll have to see how it goes.
>>Perhaps keep the column flexible and provide any available info that might help characterise the site.
Aesthetically the variable columns looked mismatched, so there's a tension between the two needs.
>>For this edition, the fact we have listed it means it is worth looking at.
I agree, that was the baseline for inclusion and part of the reason the All Rights Reserved/restricted access/traditional copyright repositories were included.