Subject: request to make the "tools version" of the agenda the default

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2012 10:11:38 -0800

So, the 'tools version' with all the wonderful spiffy links to helpful
things (the materials, the etherpad, the ...) and the spiffy
highlighting ability (Dark Red!  I love dark red!) has been very stable
and highly useful for quite a while now.  But the default link on the
web page still points to the less-useful HTML version (which has a link
at the top to get to the tools version).  I'd argue this is backwards at
this point, and the tools version is so much more useful (and just as
stable) as the plain-html version that it should be the default.  Can we
do that for March+?

[I know, we just *ended* a face-to-face meeting so why am I bringing up
face-to-face meeting topics so far before the next one?  That's unheard
of!  Call me crazy...]

-- 
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.

---

From: "Bert Wijnen (IETF)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:03:13 +0100

+1

---

From: Sam Hartman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 07:30:18 -0500

Another +1 for prefering tools.ietf.org to ietf.org especially for the
wg pages.
The tools site is significantly more accessible than the IETF site.
One main reason is that the tools site actually uses html heading
elements. Screen readers can easily jump to headings, but I have to tab
through every link in the ietf website's top and navigation to find the
information.
That gets kind of old:-)

mainly pointing this out lest someone argue that the static html version
is more accessible. At least for the blind, it's not.

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 09:51:41 -0500

--On Thursday, 29 November, 2012 10:11 -0800 Wes Hardaker
<[email-masked]> wrote:

> 
> So, the 'tools version' with all the wonderful spiffy links to
> helpful things (the materials, the etherpad, the ...) and the
> spiffy highlighting ability (Dark Red!  I love dark red!) has
> been very stable and highly useful for quite a while now.  But
> the default link on the web page still points to the
> less-useful HTML version (which has a link at the top to get
> to the tools version).  

FWIW, I agree that the "tools version" is better in every way
that I can think of than the static HTML version.  But for those
of us who are still enough members of the dinosaur age to still
sometimes read things on WiFi-free airplanes and trains and
(shudder) still sometimes mark up paper, _please_ don't
implement this change the way the change to the I-D
announcements was done, i.e., by forcing a several-stage
click-through process to get to whatever versions are not the
preferred version of the year.

   john

---

From: Loa Andersson <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 16:11:00 +0100

John,

I took this request as request to change the default, given that the
tool-version is what I use (mostly) that change would be beneficial,
but I'd be reluctant to see the HTML-version go away immediately.

/Loa

-- 

Loa Andersson                         email: [email-masked]
Sr Strategy and Standards Manager            [email-masked]
Ericsson Inc                          phone: +46 10 717 52 13
                                              +46 767 72 92 13

---

From: John C Klensin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 10:39:45 -0500

> but I'd be reluctant to see the HTML-version go away

I think changing the default is fine.  I'd also be reluctant to
see the "normal" HTML version go away immediately but would be
especially reluctant to see the plain text version go away or
even become less accessible (require more clicks or searching to
navigate too).

   john

---

From: Wes Hardaker <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 11:10:20 -0800

> even become less accessible (require more clicks or searching to

I suspect we can all agree that this would be optimal:

1) have the tools version be the default (my original statement)
2) have the html version still present
3) have the text version still present
4) produce an xml version for better parsing
   (ever try and write an agenda app? Half your time is spent writing a
   .txt or .html parser)
5) have each of the above have links between them

I'd assume that this is difficult (aside from #4 which would take the
most time as it's not just a switch-flip); although it's possible
someone has done it already and I just haven't learned of it.
-- 
Wes Hardaker
SPARTA, Inc.

---

From: Richard Barnes <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2012 14:16:34 -0500

>   (ever try and write an agenda app? Half your time is spent writing a

s/xml/json/

Ever try writing an XML app?  Half your time is spent writing a .xml parser.