[ckan-discuss] CKAN for humans?

Wed Apr 27 12:20:24 BST 2011

I'd love to see that brain dump and perhaps add to it!

Personally, I'd prefer to work on this using the written word (email /
google docs / wiki) first, over conf calls, though perhaps the latter
would be good to establish *how* we progress the discussion.

I'd be interested in drawing up a set of Actors and Use Cases to start
with, so we have a baseline against which to ask "is this useful"?
(q.v. my emails about Workbenches etc etc!)

Seb

On 27 April 2011 12:15, Christopher Gutteridge <cjg at ecs.soton.ac.uk> wrote:
> Some time ago I sent quite a long list of suggestions you might use as a
> starting point, the key issue being to consider the poor sod who lands on a
> random CKAN package page, via google. -- they are not very hospitable to
> people who don't actively already understand CKAN.
>
> http://ckan.net/about put me right off.
>
> Perhaps Refus still has my brain dump?
>
>
> Lucy Chambers wrote:
>
> I agree with the sentiment that it would be great to make CKAN more
> easy to understand for the non-techies / first time users.
>
> Would it be worth pulling together some keen bodies for a
> Skype-brainstorming call on how we might go about this?
>
> Lucy
>
> On Wed, Apr 27, 2011 at 9:40 AM, Seb Bacon <seb.bacon at okfn.org> wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ckan-discuss mailing list
> ckan-discuss at lists.okfn.org
> http://lists.okfn.org/mailman/listinfo/ckan-discuss
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248
>
> You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/
>