On 04/14/2011 04:59 PM, Andreas Tille wrote: > I always wonder what the difference might be. For me the field > "Abstract" is clear. It should be mandatory. There might be some use > for "Submission notes" which can be filled with notes to clarify the > abstract or some other stuff but I usually leave it out.
I agree with these interpretations of "Abstract" and "Notes". Notes in
particular might be used for presentation logistical details like "i'll
need an amplified sound system with an 1/8" stereo audio input jack" or
"I explicitly do not want video-team coverage for this talk".
> I never made any sense out of this Description field. So *if* it has
> any sense it definitely needs some footnote or some explanation
> somewhere else. Otherwise it should be removed (if it is not yet to
> late because people filled in some content).
Last year, i used "Description" as a long-form place to describe the
talk in more detail. Other people appear to have done the same.
So while "Abstract" is usually a one (or two, at most) paragraph
description, Description might include an entire talk outline.
Having the Abstract makes it possible to prepare a reasonably-sized
printed schedule that includes more than the title for each work (though
i don't know if anyone really needs such a schedule).
Given that the full Description is probably not viewed by most people,
the main advantage of it is that people can use it to give the talks
team a clearer picture of the talk itself and the level of preparation
of the submitter.
This may or may not be useful enough to warrant keeping it around.
I would be OK with hiding the description field, if no one has a strong
argument for keeping it around.
--dkg
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Debconf-team mailing list Debconf-team@lists.debconf.org http://lists.debconf.org/mailman/listinfo/debconf-team
