[rfc-i] Proposed survey on I-D authoring tools

Dan York york at isoc.org
Wed Sep 30 18:08:26 PDT 2020


Jay,
A couple of comments inline… 

> On Sep 29, 2020, at 10:58 PM, Jay Daley <jay at ietf.org> wrote:
> 
> [QUESTION - Checkboxes]
> How did you choose the document format(s) and associated output process(es) that you use? (Check all that apply)
> 	• I researched the tools
> 	• I decided on my authoring format first and then chose a tool that uses that
> 	• I saw a presentation on one of the tools at an IETF meeting
> 	• Another author chose for me

For clarity, perhaps “Another author of my document chose for me”

> 	• The I-D I wanted to contribute to was already drafted in one of these tools
> 	• Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]

What about something like “Someone else helped me set up my tools”?  I know I’ve helped a couple of people get set up by explaining what I use and pointing people to tools.  You could think of that as “I researched my tools” … but it might be interesting to know how much is really being passed around by people sharing info with each other.

> 
> [PAGE]
> XML v3

This entire section below assumes you either author in XML or have sufficient complexity in your documents where you need to know about XMLv3. In recent years I’ve shifted to writing drafts entirely in Markdown, and to be honest all my drafts have been simple enough in their text and formatting that I haven’t needed to know anything about the underlying XML. The transition from XML v2 to v3 did not seem to make a difference for my documents.

I think there are probably some % of authors who are in the same situation. Particularly newer authors who did not come out of the XML world and do their editing in some text format like Markdown or AsciiDoc, or use MS Word.

I understand the need to ask these questions because there *are* authors who do care about the v3 format (and in some cases care very strongly).

Maybe to make it easier on survey respondents, if you are using SurveyMonkey or some similar tool, perhaps you can use the option to conditionally display questions so that if someone answers “None” on the knowledge of the v3 format, then they won’t see the additional questions.

> 
> [QUESTION - Multiple Choice]
> How do you rate your knowledge of the v3 official RFC/I-D XML format?
> 	• Excellent
> 	• Good
> 	• Fair
> 	• Poor
> 	• None
> 
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How satisfied are you with the following characteristics of the v3 XML format?
> Items
> 	• Ease of use
> 	• Features
> 	• Documentation
> 	• Tools support
> 	• Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
> 	• Very satisfied
> 	• Satisfied
> 	• Neutral
> 	• Dissatisfied
> 	• Very dissatisfied
> 	• N/A
> 
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How important are the following characteristics of the v3 XML format to you?
> Items
> 	• Ease of use
> 	• Features
> 	• Documentation
> 	• Tools support
> 	• Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
> 	• Very important
> 	• Important
> 	• Neutral
> 	• Unimportant
> 	• Very unimportant
> 	• N/A
> 
> [QUESTION - Comment Box]
> What more needs to be done to support the rollout of the v3 XML format?



> [PAGE]
> State of the current authoring tools landscape

On these two questions below, do we want to include something about “Integration with version control systems”?  I’m thinking about some of the different tools that are designed to work with git / GitHub.

> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How satisfied are you with the following characteristics of authoring tools?
> Items
> 	• Ease of use
> 	• Integration with IETF processes
> 	• Support for the full range of tags / metadata
> 	• Control of output
> 	• Support of various output formats
> 	• Speed at which new features are added
> 	• Overall quality
> 	• Choice of different tools
> 	• Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
> 	• Very satisfied
> 	• Satisfied
> 	• Neutral
> 	• Dissatisfied
> 	• Very dissatisfied
> 	• N/A
> 
> [QUESTION - Matrix/Rating Scale]
> How Important are the following characteristics of authoring tools to you?
> Items
> 	• Ease of use
> 	• Integration with IETF processes
> 	• Support for the full range of tags / metadata
> 	• Control of output
> 	• Support of various output formats
> 	• Speed at which new features are added
> 	• Overall quality
> 	• Choice of different tools
> 	• Other [PLEASE SPECIFY]
> Scale
> 	• Very important
> 	• Important
> 	• Neutral
> 	• Not important
> 	• Not at all important
> 	• N/A

Regards,
Dan



More information about the rfc-interest mailing list