A draft for WEIRD discussion...

[Michael Sondow]

I believe that we need to move IETF content onto the Web,
and use real line drawings and graphics, to reach this audience.

I agree wholeheartedly with this, especially the use of drawings and graphics.

The following, from your draft, are especially appropriate, IMO.

"It can now be argued that the text-only RFC format is, itself,
a source of cultural bias in the dissemination of information about the
internet: a cultural bias toward people who know what a PDP-11 is.
While not in possession of hard data, the author argues that relatively
few who today consider themselves internet users have ever used a "text
editor" or have access to a "text printer". The abundance of FAQs
[MARSHALL99] [SQUARE96] written to explain the emoticons :-) used in
e-mail illustrate the difficulty that end-users have with use of
typewriter graphics to convey "images". The ability to render a 256
color bitmap is as pervasive on today's computers as was the ability to
render text on a VT100 when current RFC rules were drafted."

"The author believes that a restricted subset of HTML, including support
for bit-mapped
graphics images, is a good starting point."

This sounds about right. Certainly bit-mapped images are now universal.

OTOH, I think the matter of using links in RFCs in HTML needs to be very
carefully considered.

The "requirements" section of your draft seems quite adequate. Can't think of a
thing to add, except possibly a requirement relating to the editors, for
example that the format(s) employed be standardized and that they be accessible
to all members of the working groups concerned with editing them.

[Darrin Jones]

I think your draft is right on for the most part. A restricted subset of HTML
sounds good also but I'm not so sure about XML (yet).

To get some advance discussion going, I wrote this draft. I'd like to revise
this based on your input - especially in the requirements section - and make
it an official "working group draft" once the group charters. So, without
further ado, here's <draft-burke-realusers-00.txt>, "Real Users Don't Read
RFCs".
Have a great weekend!
Chris Burke
<<draft-burke-realusers-00.txt>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name: draft-burke-realusers-00.txt
draft-burke-realusers-00.txt Type: Plain Text (text/plain)
Encoding: quoted-printable

[Chris Hare]

I certainly agree also. As a relative newcomer to this forum, and having
read a lot of RFCs over the years, I know of many situations where a picture
would have certainly helped. I don't know much about XML yet (I have to go
read that), but I too would caution the use of HTML links in the RFC
documents themselves, unless the information is readily available on the
IETF website itself.

Many users find the fact that links get out of date quite frustrating, as I
think we all do, and while it does lead a trail of bread crumbs, will the
end users be able to follow the trail?

Chris
Security Architect
Nortel Networks

-----Original Message-----
Sent: Friday, February 26, 1999 2:50 PM
Subject: A draft for WEIRD discussion...
the
Web Evangelism of Internet-Related Developments (WEIRD) mailing list.
I'll be hosting the WEIRD BOF at Minneapolis. My name is Chris Burke, and
I
help manage Motorola's participation in internet and application standards
bodies from my office in sunny Seattle, WA.
One of our goals at the WEIRD BOF will be to decide whether to charter a
working group. My interest in this working group is to make information
about the IETF and the internet more accessible to typical, non-technical
internet users. I believe that we need to move IETF content onto the Web,
and use real line drawings and graphics, to reach this audience. For me,
the
open issues on the charter are about what content we use as a starting
point. Maybe you have a different idea about the charter, and I'd like to
hear it at the BOF to see if we can find some common ground.
To get some advance discussion going, I wrote this draft. I'd like to
revise
this based on your input - especially in the requirements section - and
make
it an official "working group draft" once the group charters. So, without
further ado, here's <draft-burke-realusers-00.txt>, "Real Users Don't Read
RFCs".
Have a great weekend!
Chris Burke
<<draft-burke-realusers-00.txt>> << File: draft-burke-realusers-00.txt