Should we write some instructions or guidance for the categories and tags?

[knowledges33ker]

Mike - please see Dan's question from his testing. Can you please write up a blurb that we can post to give folks guidance for the categories and tags? Just post the text as a comment to this issue and I'll update it on the web site.

[preterite]

Working on it this morning. When I went back in, I noticed for proposal categories:

Other (please specify in proposal descriptions) Pedagogies Difference

are no longer there even after we put them in, and

Texts

is still in there, even though we dropped it from the original lineup.

So: blurb text for "Categories," under the heading "Categories" but above the categories themselves:

Categories indicate major topics either described in the Call for Proposals or from the historical emphases of Computers & Writing. Please check all that apply. We welcome categories not listed, as well: please include them as terms under "Tags" in the next step.

"Categories" the list, with descriptive text next to those items that need it, should be:

Access (economic, institutional, or otherwise) Communities (concerns linked with specific groups) Convolutions (complications and connections with other disciplines) Difference (race, class, ability, gender, economic, sexuality, veteran status, age, and other forms) Digital Humanities (intersections among algorithmic building and making practices and topics of humanistic inquiry) Evolutions (the history and future of Computers & Writing and associated fields) Individuals (prominent figures and scholars influencing Computers & Writing, as well as students, faculty, and other stakeholders) Institutions (academic, government, corporate, presses, and others) Interfaces (screens, assistive technologies, human-computer interaction) Revolutions (significant large-scale or sudden changes in Computers & Writing and associated fields) Technologies (focusing on specific platforms, applications, or tools) Writing Studies (connections with rhetoric and composition concerns)

Blurb text for "Tags," under the heading "Tags" but above the text box itself:

Tags are more specific ways of identifying the concerns particular to your proposal. Please enter up to five terms, separated by commas.

[knowledges33ker]

OK. I've updated the overarching categories. Specifically, I added back the category "Other (please specify in proposal descriptions).

I think I accidentally deleted Pedagogies and Difference when I deleted "Other" the last time or at some point recently when I was editing the categories. But I've added them back now.

I also removed "Texts"

I haven't gone back in to edit every single one to add the text within parentheses yet.

Do you think that these more granular descriptions might be listed somewhere else (maybe an FAQ or something like that)? I can edit the taxonomy terms to include these but then anywhere we list the categories, the whole text will appear. I'm thinking that down the road, such as when we create the schedule, you may not want all that text to show up.

[knowledges33ker]

I added the help text you posted above and I placed it as close to the placement you described as possible. Please take a look and see if this is ok.

[preterite]

Sorry, I wasn't clear -- I think Dan's point re putting "Other" under Tags works well, so we should leave the note in the help text about doing that, but take Other out as a category. And "Cross-Disciplinary" now fits under Convolutions. So the list should be:

Access Communities Convolutions Difference Digital Humanities Evolutions Individuals Institutions Interfaces Revolutions Technologies Writing Studies

I'll append the descriptions to the end of the CFP. Revised help text should say:

Categories indicate major topics either described in the Call for Proposals or from the historical emphases of Computers & Writing. Please check all that apply (see CFP for descriptions). We welcome categories not listed, as well: please include them as terms under "Tags" in the next step.

[preterite]

link "CFP" to the CFP

[knowledges33ker]

OK, thanks Mike. I've made all these updates and double-checked the categories ;-) I think we're good to go with this one.