[rkward-devel] JSS FINAL

[Prasenjit Kapat]

Hi,

On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 7:57 PM, Stefan Rödiger <stefan_roediger at gmx.de> wrote:
> On Sunday 26 December 2010 21:06:34 Thomas Friedrichsmeier wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I'll take another look tomorrow or the day after that. Some comments:
>>
>> On Sunday 26 December 2010, Stefan Rödiger wrote:
>> > 0) Check for any missing authors guideline. From what I can see we are
>> > conform the the requirements.

I think we are good. I haven't checked the bib file, though.

>> > 1) I would like to ask everybody which final paragraph of the
>> > background.tex and which of section "Help system" you prefer (look for
>> > the %)?
>> > you prefer.
>>
>> I like the style of the non-commented version, but it's not accurate: The
>> example session come after the GUI elements, not after the technical
>> details. And of course it's the technical details, which will be compared,
>> where appropriate.
>
> Okay, I changed/corrected that and took the non-commented version (regarding
> the background.tex).

The latest version (r3327) reads fine.

> I need a vote for the section "Help system" too.

Well, to me the earlier version seems a bit disconnected. Let others vote ;)

>> > 2) Please give me feedback which figure are not good readable for you.

I think the figures are fine in terms of their content. But they don't
seem "clear" especially the fonts.. I think nothing can be done to
improve them either - all screen captures will result in this type of
quality :(

>> > 3) Check that we use consistent term etc. (for example it's always
>> > "section" not
>> > "Section", "Figure" not "Fig." or "figure"). Other  examples are "help
>> > page" vs. "help-page" or "``Submit button''" vs.  "Submit button".

Yes, one thing has been confusing me: when we refer to a menu item or
a GUI button, our draft is using double quites (``...''). Is that OK?
For example "``Submit'' button" vs "Submit button" or "``Help'' menu"
vs. "Help menu"?

>> > 4) If I get it right \proglang{} is only for languages (XML, HTML, R,
>> > C++, Qt, ECMAScript, ...) not for programs like Red-R or RKWard (see
>> > 5)).
>>
>> Yes, but it does not appear to be clear-cut. Citing from jss.dtx:
>> % This should be used for typesetting the names of programming
>> % languages, e.g., |\proglang{Java}|, |\proglang{C++}| or |\proglang{R}|.
>> % This applies also to programmable environments which also have a GUI
>> % like |\proglang{SAS}|, |\proglang{Stata}| or |\proglang{S-PLUS}|.
>>
>> Programmable environments could certainly be stretched to include KDE, but
>> also Red-R, and RKWard. Still I guess it's best to restrict it as you
>> suggest.
>>
> Okay, we keep it without anything. We keep \proglang{KDE} but stick with Red-R
> and RKWard.
>
>> > 5) Do you wish to emphasise words  like RKWard, TDI?
>>
>> We certainly shouldn't emphasise all technical terms like TDI. We might
>> emphasise RKWard (see above), but I'd leave it as is, for now. If the
>> editors want that, it will be easy to revise.
>>
>
> Same opinion here. I just had the impression that some co-authors prefer it
> emphasised.
>
>> > 6) Does anybody see a need to add something to Conclusion and Outlook? If
>> > so when do you plan to finish it?
>>
>> I don't plan to add anything.
>
> Okay. Same for me.

I'll take a look at them tonight.

>> > Generally:
>> > * 31.12 is the official deadline. I would like to sent it earlier (29. or
>> > 30. in case the editors need something else).
>>
>> Yes. I propose to target the 29th, meaning the 28th will be the last day to
>> make any changes. Of course if there is a good reason to add another day,
>> we can still do that.
>>
>
> Okay. Let's stick with it. Official target is the 28th with the 29th as
> buffer.
>
>
>> Regards
>> Thomas
>
> Regards
> Stefan
>
> Side note:  The weather is quite unpredictable and I have to use a surf stick
> currently ... . In case you don't see a "I submitted" message from me on the
> list (latest 30th evening) somebody else shouldn't hesitate to submit. Who
> wants to be the "backup"? To make it clear I intend to submit the paper as we
> discussed before (unless there is a unforeseeable reason). I would just like
> to be on the safe side.

If Thomas can, that'll be the best. If not, I can. We just have to
send the pdf file via email, right?

-- 
Prasenjit