Integrating expert feedback

[nuest]

[These comments are based on notes and transcripts from a discussion of the ERC specification with publishing domain experts.]

• [x] dropping extensions is an excellent idea #36
• [x] a plain R solution is much smaller, consequently less burden for collaboration, but higher burden for preservation
• [x] need and option to download just main file and data (cf. https://github.com/o2r-project/o2r-platform/issues/26); minimize footprint for specific usages
  • what would be the "dev version" of an ERC? everything but the runtime environment image? The Dockerfile, the RMarkdown document, and the data (explicitly)?
• community support is more important than technical support for people to be using the specification
  • noted the meta-idea of a discussion forum, e.g. discourse
  • not relevant for the spec
  • [x] add section to user guide (add email, add dicussion forum)
• [x] authors should not read the ERC spec, which is developer material; authors should be confronted with a very simple system within the submission experience; alternative: guide of required steps
• system must be as simple as possible, understandable by users if need be - current state is really good
• automated learning should be considered for user experience, i.e. after an upload give feedback "you have 80% complete, consider these things", comparable to "profile completeness score" > taken into consideration in UI only, not part of spec, rather an application of the spec
• badges should be considered
  • badges about ERC contents are imho out of scope, and badges for full ERC are under development, see https://github.com/o2r-project/o2r-badger (@nuest)
• two possibilities for UI bindings: RMarkdown + UI and write directly into RMarkdown; not being able to do the latter would be a drawback, "scientists don't like interactions" > deferred, see #32
• evolutionary approach is favoured, i.e. not replacing the article completely but having one/multiple ERC as supplemental material

Spec updates to be done

• [x] clarify the target audience for spec (devs, not authors) and guide (authors)
• [x] add reasoning against plain R solution to dev guide
• [x] how to handle ERC as supplemental material instead of the main published item? what metadata is (not) needed?
• [x] write concept for completeness score

[ghost]

updated

[nuest]

The comment on UI bindings are not going to make it into the next iteration, see #32

[nuest]

@7048730 I think I've covered everything in this issue in https://github.com/o2r-project/erc-spec/commit/8d055fcd3feadbea5d3eafd044e9961aec681c18 - feedback welcome!

[nuest]

Contained in https://github.com/o2r-project/erc-spec/tree/post-workshop2017-update