Results
|
Choice
|
Votes
|
|
Percent
|
It needs more subcategories
|
0
|
0.0%
|
|
It needs fewer subcategories
|
2
|
20.0%
|
|
It looks okay
|
8
|
80.0%
|
|
It should be done differently (please comment)
|
0
|
0.0%
|
|
|
Re: What do you think of the 89/basic/science file archive organization right now?
|
Travis Evans
(Web Page)
|
I've been out of survey ideas for quite a while, so I figure it wouldn't hurt to post this one. :-) Basically, I'm trying to figure out a good way to subdivide the 89/basic/science (see “web page” link above) archive directory (which will ultimately be used for the science sections for other calculators when they get big enough) and am finding it more tricky than I thought.
The reorganization is still ongoing, so it's a bit messy at the moment, but in general, what do you think of it? Would you do it differently? Are there too many pages with too few files in each section to wade through, or are there too many files on too few pages? Do the categories I selected made sense, or are they confusing?
|
Reply to this comment
|
3 October 2016, 02:50 GMT
|
|
Re: What do you think of the 89/basic/science file archive organization right now?
|
Stefan Bauwens
(Web Page)
|
I think it looks ok, but I guess if I could change anything in general, I'd maybe add an "all" directory to sections with lots of subdivisions. Something it's cool just to browse through all the TI-89 basic games for example :P
|
Reply to this comment
|
4 October 2016, 07:31 GMT
|
|
Re: What do you think of the 89/basic/science file archive organization right now?
|
DJ_Omnimaga
(Web Page)
|
Looks fine to me now. You might want to split pub/83plus/basic/math/quadratic/ in the same way as during the 2011 April Fools joke, though.
|
Reply to this comment
|
13 October 2016, 16:58 GMT
|
|
|