On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:36 PM, Alexandro Colorado <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 7:52 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Albino B Neto <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > Hi.
>> >
>> > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 8:22 AM, Rob Weir <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> So I'm wondering... are there other kinds of certification of
>> >> interest, beyond user certification? Does anyone currently (or do we
>> >> anticipate) something like a "Certified OpenOffice Developer"? If so
>> >> we might want to reserve categories for "User Certification" and
>> >> "Developer Certification". (Admin certification as well?)
>> >
>> > Certification can be wide. How can we have certification for users,
>> > consultants, developers, I believe this could have shed, or maybe just
>> > for users and developers.
>> >
>> > It will depend on where the project wants to reach, but I think having
>> > to Users, Consultants and Developers.
>> >
>> > Because consultants and User: User who want to teach, increases your
>> > resume. Consultants who wish to migrate to companies etc.
>> >
>>
>>
>> OK. Let me restate this in another way:
>>
>> If we have a fixed schema (a fixed taxonomy or list of "areas of
>> practice") then this allows us to generate an UI that categories by
>> this value. So we could have a table of contents or navigation error
>> that takes you to a list of only "Migration" experts or only
>> "Certification" experts. For this to work well we need a pre-defined
>> list, of maybe 5-12 categories that we can fit everyone into. But if
>> every listing has its own unique category, then this is not very
>> useful. It doesn't help the consultant or the site visitor.
>>
>> But I don't want to do anything unnatural either. If the real world
>> doesn't fit neatly into 5-12 categories, we could abandon that kind of
>> categorization and just have it be a free entry field with no special
>> navigation. Or even eliminate it altogether in favor of the
>> unstructured "description" field.
>>
>> If we think we'll have many listings (more than a page) then having a
>> categorization would be helpful to the user, I think, to help them
>> find what they are looking for more easily.
>>
>>
>> In any case thanks to Ian for the listing data. Can anyone else offer
>> a listing? Alexandro, perhaps?
>>
>
> Our taxonomy only expanded to 3 'tags', Developer, Training, Consultant.
> Consulting would cover migration services.
> Development would cover VARs and ISV.
> Training will cover certification, book publishers, freelance trainers etc.
>
> It was common for companies to have two or three categories.
>
I'm looking at the legacy OOo consultants.ods file, which used to be
on the website. It was structured like this:
- 404 entities listed
- grouped by country
- sorted by country and local region, e.g. state or province
- no description field, only the entity's name and URL
- one or more categories from this list:
Training (or training materials) - T
Light customization (macros, templates, ...) - L
Installation (support, pre-installation or distribution) - I
Help desk services, general support – H
Software programming (on demand / custom) - S
Custom programming (plug-ins, addons, etc) – P
Of course, we don't need to do exactly the same thing, but that is one
example view of the world.
-Rob
>
>
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> > Albino
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> PPMC Apache OpenOffice
> http://es.openoffice.org
