User talk:ChrisLoosley

Articles I am working on[edit]

I created these; you can improve them:

I am working on these:

I have edited these:

I am not listing articles to which I've made minor additions, wording clarifications, or added cross-references or categories where applicable. Chris Loosley 09:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Useful resources[edit]

Rich Internet Applications[edit]

I have edited the Rich Internet Applications page, beginning at the top, focusing primarily (if not exclusively) on design, measurement, and management issues, but also cleaning up and clarifying the writing in the areas where I am working. I edited the Benefits and Shortcomings and Restrictions sections, and inserted a new section on Management complications, including four bullets summarizing that aspect of RIAs.

I have also added a link to my survey paper on the design, measurement, and management challenges posed by RIAs. I believe the paper qualifies for inclusion since it covers topics that I have not seen summarized elsewhere. It does not promote any particular product or point of view, other than being an advocate for systematic service level management of applications.

Question: While the new section draws on the material in the linked survey paper, it is of course a very short summary of the issues discussed in more detail in the paper. Is there any WP convention for referencing the external material within the body of the entry, or referencing the External Links section, in such cases? I included the reference in both places.

Rewrite of Web Design and Web Development Articles[edit]

I am working on a rewrite of the Web design and Web development articles, which were marked as needing a complete rewrite. The rewritten versions will provide a more complete framework for others to add material about these subjects, and position Web development in the broader context of a software development process, which is already a Wikipedia category comprising many articles. For more details, see the Talk pages for the respective articles.

I, for one, appreciate all your insights and efforts. Keep up the good work. ;) Oicumayberight 22:29, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I'd particularly appreciate your review of the new material I just drafted in the "Web Design" section of the Web development rewrite. Chris Loosley 22:45, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goal directed design[edit]

Any thoughts with what to do with Goal directed design? My first thought was to merge it witn interaction design, since Cooper uses the phrases interchangeably except to promote himself. Maybe a delete is best. --Ronz 18:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Use-centered design is more of the same from my perspective. --Ronz 18:43, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not own the latest edition of Cooper, but since a definitive taxonomy of design "styles" is not already given in the interaction design or design methods articles, I doubt if one exists anywhere. Looking at the books on my shelf, Chapter 1 (pdf) of The Design of Sites is titled Customer-Centered Web Design. In it, Van Duyne et al compare four design styles that they call user-centered, company-centered, technology-centered, and designer-centered design. Obviously they prefer the first, which they claim to have expanded on to obtain customer-centered design. Chandler and Hyatt claim to have done the same thing in the introduction (pp6-7) to their book, Customer-Centered Design.

So if we agree that there are many poorly-defined and overlapping terms for design styles or approaches, we could have a paragraph saying that in interaction design -- maybe at the end immediately above "See also". That paragraph would contain references to miscellaneous terms (like those used by Van Duyne), and link to any short articles that exist. Alternatively, as you suggest, the shorter articles could be shortened further and merged as sub-paragraphs. It would be nice to have this kind of overview somewhere; it could help us to skirt some of these kinds of minefields in the Web design rewrite! Chris Loosley 22:41, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad someone's thinking this through. I agree to the approach. There one other attempt to organize similarly: Design philosophy. --Ronz 23:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you asking me to do that, or will you, based on this conversation? I was hoping to stick to the Web design/development rewite, even though (naturally) everything turns out to be interconnected.

And BTW, shouldn't design philosophy be linked from design, or merged into it? It addresses broader concepts than interaction design. I guess eventually the "see also" section of the design article could evolve into a taxonomy of design, which would help with discussions like this one. Chris Loosley 00:48, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and do what you want. The large number of design-related articles are a mess. I just wanted to get your opinion on Goal directed design, and use-centered design. I'm trying to track down all the articles and figure how they relate. Merging or deleting some seems like a good first step on how to handle them. --Ronz 01:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Modifying users' comments[edit]

Please do not violate the guidlines at Wikipedia:Vandalism. Specifically the item about modifiying users comments. Jerazol 23:50, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not modify them, I reverted a blanked page, added a heading because I wanted to add a second comment on the proper use of talk pages, and added two comments. Feel free to reorganize what's there, but please don't simply blank comments out. Thank you. Chris Loosley 23:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you did substantially alter the meaning of a comment added by another user. And, I don't really see why I should clean up the mess created by you. Jerazol 00:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's how WP works. If you think something is "a mess", you can reorganize it. Chris Loosley 00:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Apdex Logo.PNG[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Apdex Logo.PNG. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]