[ckan-discuss] CKAN for humans?

Wed Apr 27 09:40:21 BST 2011

It's certainly OK that other tools are used, I agree :)

On the other hand, I think it's vital that we make CKAN a bit easier
to understand for the less determined visitor.  Conversations I've
been having have made it clear that it's hard for a casual visitor to
begin to understand what CKAN is about.  This should change.

On a related note, it would be good to try to start towards living up
to the "Comprehensive" part of the name; we should perhaps have a
project development strand whereby we attempt to import the metadata
for many of the sources you've pointed to.

Seb

> On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Tim McNamara
> <paperless at timmcnamara.co.nz> wrote:
>> Does CKAN need to be more accessible to humans? Or is it okay that people
>> use other tools?
>
> It's not only OK ... it's in the nature of data publishing on the web.
> The fact that people will use other tools should guide the design and
> future evolution of CKAN. I'm not entire sure what that means, but I
> thought I'd throw it out there :-)
>
> //Ed
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-discuss mailing list
> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>