10,579
edits
Changes
→Help Wanted list?
: You got it, we just have to decide whether it's best to have activity requests on the main TODO list or on sub-pages. Right now I'm leaning towards the main TODO list, I want to impress people with how much work there is to do :) [[User:Wade|Wade]] 19:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
: You got it, we just have to decide whether it's best to have activity requests on the main TODO list or on sub-pages. Right now I'm leaning towards the main TODO list, I want to impress people with how much work there is to do :) [[User:Wade|Wade]] 19:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
: Requests moved. [[User:Wade|Wade]] 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
: Requests moved. [[User:Wade|Wade]] 21:00, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
==Inclusion criteria==
There have been discussion of inclusion criteria over the years: i.e., which activities should be included in a Sugar distribution? I stumbled across this old post from October 2007 that still seems relevant. --[[User:Walter|Walter]] 22:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
15. Core activities: There has been a discussion on the devel list
about the criteria for inclusion of core activities on the laptop.
We'd like to broaden the discussion. Some proposed "Criteria for
Inclusion":
A. Epistemological impact—to what degree does this activity positively
impact learning? (This is of course the most important criteria.)
B. Fun—is it fun? engaging?
C. Quality—is the activity sufficiently robust in its implementation
that it will not compromise the integrity or supportability of the
system? Is the overall quality of the implementation adequate to meet
our standards? Can the community be engaged in the process of testing
and "certifying" and maintaining the activity?
D.Sugarized—to what extent has the activity been integrated into
Sugar, including UI, Journal, security, internationalization, etc.?
Does the activity require the folding in of additional libraries and
resources? (This has impact on robustness—positive and
negative—support, bloat, and the overall usability, aesthetics, and
perception of quality of the machine.)
E. FOSS—is the activity and all of its dependencies free and open?
F. Extensible—is the activity something the community can extend? Does
it span multiple needs? (And does it have—or the potential of
having—an upstream community of support?)
G. Uniqueness—does the activity add a unique feature to the core?
H. Expectations—does the activity meet the expectations of (children,
teachers, parents, G1G1 audience, etc.)?
I. Discoverable—is the core activity discoverable? (This is not to say
that it shouldn't be hard work to fully exploit the power of an
activity, but it should have a low barrier to entry.)