Henneth Annûn Story Archive

Please comment here on the different styles of entries, or anything else you'd like to mention about the Reference Library. This will be used to help us decide on entry styles. Thanks! Lyllyn

 

Lyllyn, there seems to be a mistake with the first set of links, I always get an error message. Maybe you could check them? The second is fine, though Makamu

 

Thanks, Makamu! It must be gremlins... I could swear I checked it over. It should work now. Lyllyn

 

I am sorry to say this, Lyllyn, but the first bunch of links still doesn't work. It says something about Error In Diagnostics, but other than that, I can't describe it any better... About the others though... I liked the organisation, since it gives it an aura of Encyclopedia, although the one of Osgiliath is a bit too dense in comparison to the link of the Easterlings... Other than that though, it's good, especially for a newbie like myself... Cheers!

 

The Easterlings link worked for me - anyone else having problems? I'm not sure what happened to the Osgiliath link, but it works for me now. Each set is one style so I'm particularly interested in comparisons between sets. But I appreciate the comments on each, those are valuable too. Thanks! Lyllyn

 

I apolgize - something odd is happening and I'll have to track it down. The links work, then I check them again and they don't. I hope to have it fixed soon. Lyllyn

 

Hi Lyllyn, just now all links worked for me. What I do not understand is what I should evaluate. I like the first style of 'Easterling' with the many links which facilitate browsing. I miss therein a summary, preferably at the beginning. But I like also the essay-style of 'Gilraen' which looks a bit into the interpretation. Here I would like to see more links (Aragorn, Rivendell, Arathorn, Arwen etc.) Thus, much more links in 'Gilraen' and some conclusions, summary, or interpretations in 'Easterlings'. IMO 'Erendis' still needs more links, otherwise I found it very useful. Conclusion: I would prefer a mix of these various styles. Best wishes Elanor Edit: just found Liz's mail which states what we should look for: Easterlings (Barbara's "standard" - no quotation marks around quotes, researcher additions in square brackets.) Erendis (Quotation marks around quotes, research additions unmarked.) Gilraen (A mix of quotes and an essay-tyle entry by the researcher.) Adûnaic (An attempt to update an existing entry containing just researcher commentary in line with Barbara's "standard" when quotes were added.) So, let's see: I would prefer quotation marks around quotes and researcher additions in brackets. In 'Adunaic' I miss the time table with some short summaries or abstracts of the quotations at the beginning. I like an abstract at the beginning (preferably with a stated time range of the event) to decide if I need to read further.

 

just now all links worked for me. Thank Ang, she tracked down the errors! And thank you, for thoughtful commentary. Some of these were done before we started inserting links at all. Most have links on the right side under "library links" but I think people don't notice those and the inserted ones are more convenient (yay Barbara!). All the comments will help us pick a 'standard' version that is most useful.

 

I prefer the second or third style - I didn't care for the first example as it seemed so 'choppy'. When I'm usinmg resources for real the entries I love best have both narrative as well as quotations, but with clearly marked references for the researcher's comments. I also like links in the main text. Avon

 

Thanks everyone who has given feedback - and more is still welcome. I'm going to summarize, and ask people to add or correct: People like the links. Most new entries have them, and we're slowly adding them to old entries, this may give us impetus, especially if some people volunteer for "links patrol." Some people like the narrative as a way to smooth things out, others don't care. The issue that concerned us, members being able to easily distinguish what is quoted and what is the researcher's own words, seems not to be a problem. Any corrections or additions or suggestions? Lyllyn

 

I've just discovered this discussion, as the holidays had me away from the computer most of the time. Hope this is in time to be of use. First of all, you were right, Lyllyn - I never notice the link for 'show/hide links' on the right. It's very useful, but I overlooked it every time I opened one of your examples. And the little bit I've used the resource section, I had yet to notice it (I'll use it now!). Being rather methodical, I liked the first example the best, where everything was divided up into sections. It helps me organize the information in my head. In fact, I felt the need for the categories themselves (within the entries) to be more consistent. But I think this is getting to the point of nitpicking. I didn't feel the need for quotations around direct quotes - as long as it was clear, as in when the source immediately follows the quote. Definitely put additions in brackets, but you might want to add a general note that this is what brackets mean, for those who have less experience with researching. There's always a first time for everyone! The narrative of the Gilraen entry was a little harder to decipher, as far as what was a direct quote and what was interpretation. I appreciated how it offered a few directs quotes, clearly such with quotes and the source cited, before going into the narrative. The Adunaic entry was a little more confusing. I wasn't entirely sure in the end if the paragaphs were wholly direct quotes, as it seemed, since they each finished with a source cited, and the first one used brackets around the opening word. Perhaps that's just because they were long quotes. In both, I missed the structure of the first entries, and I think a timeline or some such thing could be helpful. Then again, not all entries may lend themselves to such a structure as was used with the Easterlings and similar entries. As for links, by all means, but if the side bar is an easier method of providing this, perhaps make it something that's never hidden, or at least more noticeable in some way. Hope this helps! monica

 

I've just discovered this discussion, as the holidays had me away from the computer most of the time. Hope this is in time to be of use. Absolutely in time! In any case, improving the Resource section is an ongoing effort, so if you think of something in the future, please add! First of all, you were right, Lyllyn - I never notice the link for 'show/hide links' on the right. It's very useful, but I overlooked it every time I opened one of your examples. And the little bit I've used the resource section, I had yet to notice it (I'll use it now!). I think it's commonly overlooked. We'll probably change to leaving it "open" as a default, but I don't know how soon that change will be made. Being rather methodical, I liked the first example the best, where everything was divided up into sections. It helps me organize the information in my head. In fact, I felt the need for the categories themselves (within the entries) to be more consistent. But I think this is getting to the point of nitpicking. Er, no, you can't nitpick too much for resource geeks. (hey, if you like nitpicking, we can always use more geeks...) Thanks, the organization is a fairly recent development (all hail ElenaTIriel!) and we will gradually revise older entries. I didn't feel the need for quotations around direct quotes - as long as it was clear, as in when the source immediately follows the quote. Definitely put additions in brackets, but you might want to add a general note that this is what brackets mean, for those who have less experience with researching. There's always a first time for everyone! We may have to come up with one standard format to make it clearer. The narrative of the Gilraen entry was a little harder to decipher, as far as what was a direct quote and what was interpretation. I appreciated how it offered a few directs quotes, clearly such with quotes and the source cited, before going into the narrative. The Adunaic entry was a little more confusing. I wasn't entirely sure in the end if the paragaphs were wholly direct quotes, as it seemed, since they each finished with a source cited, and the first one used brackets around the opening word. Perhaps that's just because they were long quotes. In both, I missed the structure of the first entries, and I think a timeline or some such thing could be helpful. Then again, not all entries may lend themselves to such a structure as was used with the Easterlings and similar entries. Thanks, All of this is good feeback. It sounds like anyway we can structure the material is helpful, and that it must always be clear, however it's indicated, what is a quote and what is researcher summary/commentary. Lyllyn

 

Ang has changed over Events so the default for library links is "show" rather than "hide". I asked her to do only one section first, so we can decide if that's what we want. Pro: It is now more obvious that the side links exist. If this is sufficient, inserting manual links, with all the extra work involved, might no longer be necessary. Some people find the text links visually disturbing. (I did at first, but I am now used to them, so I can't judge.) Con: Users might feel the page is too cluttered, or the side links are distracting. Alternately, they might still prefer the intext links. Opinions? Lyllyn

 

As a note, I like having *both* the intertext links and the sidebar links. Sometimes I'm just poking around and I like to let intertext links lead me to other things. Other times, I want to work more efficiently, and the side links organize connections to other research library entries very well. So, it's not an either/or proposition. Toodles - Ang

 

Ang has changed over Events so the default for library links is "show" rather than "hide". Here's a good example to evaluate: Battle of the Pelennor. I added all the relevant sideline links, so it's a reasonably long entry with a lot of sideline links... - Barbara

 

Opinions? I've held off giving my opinion for a few days, because of my bias due to my long and sordid history with the in-text links. I, personally, prefer the in-text links, but I think that both types of links have their place. The in-text links are limited to things that are mentioned in the quotations that you can compile for an entry, whereas sideline links don't have that limitation. For example, in the entry for the Quest of Erebor, I was able to link to all the members of Thorin Oakenshield's company in the sideline links, even though their names do not appear in the entry. I do recognize that the text with many in-text links can be distracting, so I have limited my initial, um, zeal, to linking to any particular item usually only once, regardless of the total length of the entry. When I first started inserting in-text links, I would link multiple times if the mentions were a few inches apart; now I only link to the same entry more than once if it is referred to by different names in the initial entry (e.g. "the Forest" vs "Mirkwood", if the relationship isn't obvious). (I look at some of my earlier efforts and cringe in embarrassment...) As far as displaying the sideline links, I prefer the default to be "Hide", mostly because of the space taken up by the list. HTH! - Barbara

 

• Forums Home
• 1 Month of Posts
• FAQs

Forum Conferences

• Challenges
• General
• Members
• Resources
• Stories

A conference is a collection of forums.

Intended for: General Audience

This forum is open to all HASA members. It is read-only for the general public.

Membership on HASA is free and it takes only a few minutes to join. If you would like to participate, please click here.

If you are already a member, please log in to participate.

« Back to Reference Library - entries, requests, etc.

• Citations for Tolkien's writings
• Maiar, The
• Valar, The