Reading guide/site organisation stuff
Nov 15 2006 15:09
Ok well as some may know we have a big reading guide in our library by chris wright.
We spoke to him about updating it but never got round to it.
I was thinking we could sorta merge it with some of our site, and merga a couple of other things too.
Right now we have a little glossary, and also have some little intrductory blurbs + links on some things in our library, e.g. the SI:
http://libcom.org/library/situationist-international
i was thinking what we could do is, for different topics classify stuff in 3 different levels:
- Summary
- Basic
- Advanced (or Detailed)
we make the little intros like the SI one into glossary entries - cos we should have groups/acronyms in glossary. These are the Summaries. We make them for loads of things, and have them sticky at the top of tags, with like 2 sentences saying what the thing is, then listing 1 or 2 related tags, where someone might also find the content they're looking for.
e.g. Spanish Civil War:
Conflict in Spain between 1936 and 1939 when Nationalists under General Franco launched coup against democratically elected republican govt. The working class in response launched a revolution, later defeated by nationalists and communists. Related tags: Spain, Spanish Resistance
Then we have the break, and underneath put more information - namely further reading links to the higher levels of reading, so
More information
Basic- our relevant history or thought page
Advanced (or Detailed) - some stuff in our library or whatever.
We merge this with the reading guide by linking to our tags for each section there, and this short summary+links at the top.
You see what I mean?
what do y'all think?
Nov 17 2006 18:11
#2
I think this is a good idea. but i havent had time to think about it properly yet. Sorry!
Nov 17 2006 18:41
#3
I think it's good, but I don't think we should call anything basic/advanced/detailed like this:
Quote:
Basic- our relevant history or thought page
Advanced (or Detailed) - some stuff in our library or whatever.
Just list the best stuff first innit.
Nov 17 2006 18:41
#4
The reading guide could be split into book pages?
Nov 17 2006 18:49
#5
So users/readers will be able to tag them like del.icio.us? If that's not what you're saying, you should do it anyway 
This comment probably doesn't help you at all.
Edit: And I don't mean with del.icio.us. I mean like del.icio.us except constricted within just libcom.org. So when a use wants to search for the Spanish Civil War they could look under tags for "Spain" "War" "Anarchists" "Fascism" etc...
Nov 17 2006 18:54
#6
Quote:
So users/readers will be able to tag them like del.icio.us? If that's not what you're saying, you should do it anyway
If you post news/history/library stuff you can tag your own posts, but we don't yet have user tagging of different articles yet.
One day though we will and that's exactly the plan. If you've not seen it yet libcom.org/tags has some of it.
Nov 17 2006 21:58
#7
catch wrote:
I think it's good, but I don't think we should call anything basic/advanced/detailed like this:Quote:
Basic- our relevant history or thought page
Advanced (or Detailed) - some stuff in our library or whatever.Just list the best stuff first innit.
Nah, because i think we should split it by length - someone just might want a quick summary, and we shouldn't direct them to a 30,000 word library text that it's impossible to understand...
no one?
i'd be happy to start doing this, but think it's best to work out a good system first, so we don't have to scrap and start again.
Right now using book pages. I mean it'd be nice to have little thumbnails for things which appear full in the ful version, but I spose they could just be thumbnails in both - just try to use small pics as well.
And how would we integrate with wright's guide? Should we just C&P the good suggestions after the links to stuff on our site, then just update these glossary entries/intros? so there would be no central guide any more, just a diffuse one spread over the glossary? that would be nice, but problematic in that we would have no link to "libcom reading guide". hmmm unless we turn the whole glossary into a reading guide, which it could be. would just require putting at least 1 recommended reading on all entries.
this is making me think glossary should be in thought btw...