Re: [rfc-i] rfc-interest Digest, Vol 196, Issue 22

> 
> For me, the datatracker page that I get to from a datatracker WG page has the metadata that I need to work, whereas the tools page is sadly lacking in that regard.  Yes, there is less metadata but I need that missing metadata so leaving it out is counter-productive.

For what?

My point is that the datatracker page is great for a standards jockey.
The tools page was better for an implementer or a student.

Both have their place (and it is good they link to each other!), but I’d argue the landing page should be more like the latter.
(Maybe there should be a cookie to cause auto-forwarding for the standards jockeys?)

> Also, from https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/<i-d name> I get what is to me a clear display of the document history from which I can navigate to (almost) any earlier version.  I am puzzled that there should be any difficulty in clicking on the green or purple bar to select a different version (except when the submissions window is closing and authors submit three versions in under 24 hours and the bars shrink to zero).

Yes, that visualization is not bad if you need that information.
If you don’t, it is a waste of space.

> I think that the datatracker took a giant leap forward at some point from being unusable to being the best way into the work of the IETF so my home page became Active WGs. I often want to return there so that having the nav bar is most useful.

No contest on the opinion that the datatracker is awesome!
It really shows what situated software can evolve into.
But the point of situated software is that it is always optimized for a specific group of users, and I’m arguing there are two distinct groups here.

Grüße, Carsten

_______________________________________________
rfc-interest mailing list
rfc-interest@rfc-editor.org
https://www.rfc-editor.org/mailman/listinfo/rfc-interest