Talk:Project guidelines: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
For Independent Games (freeware, open source, etc.) there is [http://www.tigrs.org/ TIGRS]. |
For Independent Games (freeware, open source, etc.) there is [http://www.tigrs.org/ TIGRS]. |
||
== possible to generalize? == |
|||
would it be worth it to have "OLPC guidelines" (better-named) for all OLPC project reviewing (whether they be activities or dev program apps or what have thee) and then specific criteria for each individual category? [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 14:44, 9 February 2008 (EST) |
|||
== what is this for? == |
|||
Agreed with Mitchell that this page could use an intro/topic sentence. Without knowing the intent/purpose of the page it's a little hard for me to review whether it's good. Mitchell thinks this "seems something like 'activity evaluation criteria'? "Some proposed criteria for inclusion:" suggests the evaluation is for inclusion in something... the set of default Activities?" [[User:Mchua|Mchua]] 14:44, 9 February 2008 (EST) |
|||
Revision as of 19:44, 9 February 2008
age ratings
For a ratings example, see ratings for the Doom series from PEGI and ESRB. (Note that the Doom that was rated is different from the Doom activity, although the game is similar. Also, Doom 3 is much more violent and explicit than the original Doom. 12+violence might be a good rating for the Doom activity.)
Some have suggested the MPAA's ratings for films, but that system is not usually applied to software. ESRB and PEGI were designed for software ratings.
For Independent Games (freeware, open source, etc.) there is TIGRS.
possible to generalize?
would it be worth it to have "OLPC guidelines" (better-named) for all OLPC project reviewing (whether they be activities or dev program apps or what have thee) and then specific criteria for each individual category? Mchua 14:44, 9 February 2008 (EST)
what is this for?
Agreed with Mitchell that this page could use an intro/topic sentence. Without knowing the intent/purpose of the page it's a little hard for me to review whether it's good. Mitchell thinks this "seems something like 'activity evaluation criteria'? "Some proposed criteria for inclusion:" suggests the evaluation is for inclusion in something... the set of default Activities?" Mchua 14:44, 9 February 2008 (EST)