Re: layout Plan - feedback form
- From: Claus Schwarm <c schwarm gmx net>
- To: Quim Gil <qgil desdeamericaconamor org>
- Cc: marketing-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: layout Plan - feedback form
- Date: Tue, 19 Sep 2006 14:55:50 +0200
On Tue, 19 Sep 2006 13:59:25 +0200
Quim Gil <qgil desdeamericaconamor org> wrote:
> The problem of such questions in a more general/marketing website is
> that the fact of a user not finding the information she was looking
> for doesn't automatically imply the page is wrong (i.e. looking for a
> eMule download in GNOME Products). In a FAQ page it is easier to
> measure if my question is answered or not.
> > Additionally, you can add a measure ranging from 1 to 7.
> As said, I would do this in library.go but the results could be too
> distort and difficult to interpret in wgo.
This is slightly correct. However, there's no major difference betweeen
lgo docs and wgo 'docs': You have information organized in a tree
Also, a low grade for a page with high variance will probably imply
that people have had very different expectations about the document,
which would probably be due to the low quality of the path. A low grade
with low variance implies that the document is low-quality.
And I also wrote: "Additionally" which means that we wouldn't be using
the numbers, only. So there would be comments as well, to understand
why somebody gave a low grade.
Of course, we probably wouldn't be able to use bugzilla for this.
> - Set a "Improve this page" link at the footer of all wgo pages.
If you're hinding this in the footer, the meaning of the suggestion is
basically destroyed. Especially with words like this. People don't
bother to 'improve our pages'. So, let's forget it.
] [Thread Prev