Re: [100attendees] [100all] Dots (fwd)

Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca> Wed, 25 October 2017 04:32 UTC

Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2017 00:32:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Paul Wouters <paul@nohats.ca>
To: 100attendees@ietf.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.21.1710250032410.7272@bofh.nohats.ca>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.21 (LRH 202 2017-01-01)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/100attendees/DbNy6DBZSkiz28A08rPTm68yqbE>
Subject: Re: [100attendees] [100all] Dots (fwd)
Precedence: list

On Wed, 25 Oct 2017, Alexa Morris wrote:

> Badge dots are an IETF tradition, perhaps as beloved as cookies. However, 
> we’ve also heard reports that the unlabeled dots can be confusing to 
> newcomers.   For IETF 100, we are going to experiment with printing the 
> appropriate acronyms on the dots (e.g. IESG on the yellow dots, IAB on the 
> red ones, etc.). After the meeting concludes, we will give everyone the 
> opportunity to voice their opinion on the experiment via the post-meeting 
> survey.

+1 !!!

> A couple of notes: in lieu of green dots, we are going to provide the host 
> team with green host badge ribbons. Also, due to space and legibility 
> concerns, we will not be printing "WG Chair" on the blue dots.  However, WG 
> chairs will have the opportunity to experiment with something unique, as they 
> will have the option of writing the name of their working group on a blank 
> blue badge ribbon if desired.

Why not use ⑁ (U+2441) ?

Paul

Re: [100attendees] [100all] Dots (fwd) Paul Wouters