I am looking at https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-7/subtitle-B/chapter-VIII/subchapter-A/part-800 and see many terms that I know are somewhere clearing defined or linked or explained. For instance, “Delegated State. A State Agency…” could like to the actual list and details.
On the Internet (I try to see all parts of it), I recommend trying hoverboxes. Wikipedia introduced a rudimentary box that only acts as a single click target. Twitter uses hoverboxes that contain links, but does not recursively show what is behind the link (or term), so you have to click or right click to go to the page – leaving your current context.
The things I want to suggest require collaboration or conversation. I like what you are doing, but see many ways to compress and speed the human reading part of it. The most serious problem on the Internet is that most of the content was a carry over from human print technology – that requires a human reader, unassisted, to read, check in their own memory and then manually do the next step.
Covid is glacial because all the sharing goes through these”human reader with limited memory” in the loop diffusion pathways.
I am introducing several things here. I want you to think of ways to allow readers to hover ANY terms that can be clarified or illuminated.
I am reading “Container. A carrier, or a bin, other storage space, bag, box, or other receptacle for grain.” and realize it resolves to billions of things in the real world. But for any particular person or view, the particular containers, sites, methods and processes are clearly defined, and accessible on the Internet usually.
This “resolve all the things in a page where there is supplementary material somewhere” starts with groups like ECFR.gov trying to at least hover one level down. If that is working, then it is a one line change to allow infinited or finite descent through many levels – leaving the hoverboxes on the screen, saving layouts for particularly complex or important views.
Giving users tools and programmable assistants is not going to work if each site tries to develop that themselves. It needs to have a global community. If your group solves somethings, there are going to be tens of millions of similar groups solving the same thing. So far, it is NOT converging. I took over TheInterentFoundation.Org (net com) from Network Solutions back in July 1998, when the original Internet Foundation was cancelled. I try to be fair to all, but see the massive reinvention of methods globally that is blocking progress on every global issue. Maybe if we get to know each other, we could work on such things.
Or, this can be another limited goal and purpose feedback processes, where it just gets ignored. I am waiting to see if your CC my email with this content, and its context.
I will try to spent time of your site. I was looking today for things related to global food inspection, trade, quality, classification, processing, design – the whole of all groups and individuals related to “food” “agriculture” “nutrition”. It is possible to deal with that scale of problem. And use methods that will converge to human accessible and machine accessible data structures that are concise and usable.
I am asking if there is a way for me to formally review and give feedback on this site? I can use screen videos to point out things. But if the group is not open that is a waste of my time. You ask for feedback, but are you willing to listen?
site:ecfr.gov has 268,000 entry points (Google, GMT 29 Dec 2021, 12:20 pm)
The whole is not concise and curated (to my standards), and not integrated into all related groups on the Internet.
“sorghum” gives 23 Million entry points
“grains” “inspections” gives 1.85 Million entry points.
Unless those are all indexed, curated, deduplicated, traced, mapped and accessible – your site could be internally perfect, but one country or the whole fail completely.
Thanks. If this form were universal and collaborative, I could CC other groups, and have a secure way to communicate with a group. The content and issues could be discussed, mapped and worked on together. Not relying on a vast mix of uncoordinated web styles and processes.
Richard Collins, Director, The Internet Foundation