Please, review this Bugs Importances draft

[Thomas Ward]

On Sat, Oct 11, 2014 at 5:54 PM, Alberto Salvia Novella
<es20490446e at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thomas Ward:
>>
>> My opinion on the core vs non-core definitions still stands
>
>
> If someone can improve it, it's welcome.
>
> Perhaps the exact definition doesn't matter that much, since there's a
> standard procedure for determining if a package is core or not. So probably
> giving an approximate idea serves the job.
>
>
> Thomas Ward:
>> That may apply to learning but has no place in a wiki, in my opinion.
>
> I thought a wiki was a place for learning.
>
>
> Thomas Ward wrote:
>> It also only applies when the visuals are ***relevant***, and not
>> with images just put there to add extra fluff.
>
> If the visual is conceptually related with the text, it will make the
> content easier to remember and more attractive to read; even in the case it
> isn't explanatory.

Exactly.  Stickynotes randomly at the end of a page are not relevant
or even conceptually related.

>
>
> Thomas Ward:
>> The great example is textbooks - they follow this theory, but they
>> ONLY follow the theory so much as the images added are relevant -
>> extra fluff is not relevant and unnecessary.
>
> If you take any textbook aimed for learning, for example those from bachelor
> or high school, you will notice that they already use the above technique
> widely.

BUT they do not add fluff images or unnecessary images.  They add
what's necessary.  They don't have a random picture of multicolored
stickynotes on a wall unless its relevant to its topic.  That isn't
relevant here.


------
Thomas