Should "bio" really be the container for names, email, phone, location, etc.?
shea256 opened this issue · comments
Why is "bio" the container for "firstName", "lastName", "email", "phone", "summary", "location", "websites" and "profiles"? I've dealt with many specs before and it seems to be the case that the less nesting there is, the easier it is on the developer. Less if statements, potential errors, etc. Github, for example, only uses top-level keys (https://api.github.com/users/rxl). I'm not suggesting you go that far, but I think it would make sense to take all of the fields currently in the "bio" dictionary out and make them their own top-level keys.
I can't even remember my rationale for doing so, which is evidence enough to suggest it is unnecessary.
If this change is ever to happen, it should be now because it will already be a bunch of work to convert all the tools over.
Calling on the committee to make a quick choice on this one.
I'm going to +1 to remove bio and put those properties on the top level.
+1, reduced complexity :)
Hrmm going to change my mind a little here, just some of the other issues speak of other countries being specific about certain bio data, and it would probably be neater to put it all in bio, instead of having random values floating around at the top level. e.g. #41
I wonder how the theming landscape will actually adopt to throw some of that information(race, # of kids etc) in anyway
One other thought: why is the section called "bio" instead of "about"? Aren't the words "bio" and "summary" used interchangeably? On twitter, "bio" refers to the blob of text that you call "summary."
From another angle, the following information only relates to "about" information:
Name = John Doe
Birth = 6th December 1980 [<-- I omitted content from #41 .]
Birthplace = Berlin [<-- I add that from #41 .]
Citizenship = German
Family status = married
Children = two
My gut finds it odd that this information would be floating around without a container.
I can understand the need for a container. I'm still leaning more towards bio, because it's more "tangible" than about.
+1 for bio
The whole resume is about you. So about really is not a good label for that section in the specification, no matter what Twitter calls it ;)
Aren't the words "bio" and "summary" used interchangeably?
The bio (biography) is something similar to a CV, but your bio is much more than just your address and name: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biography
The most appropriate and precise term is "personal details", so that's what I would call this section. References: gov.uk and lboro.ac.uk
I actually like that! personal_details +1. It's even less ambiguous than bio.
+1 for personal_details
My personal ranking:
- about
- basicInfo
- personalDetails (changed it from personal_details to match the camelcase standard)
- bio
+1 for personalDetails
You're right about the camelcase standard!~+1 for personalDetails
I'm being picky here, I think personalDetails makes sense but is there anything shorter or with less syllables. The other root level elements are short and sweet "work, education, awards,skills"
Though in the context of writing your resume, it is all personal already, so maybe details could work.
If I didn't convince anyone, +1 personalDetails, though sort of +1 to details from me too.
Lemme spin this around in my head a bit...
On Jul 12, 2014 11:06 AM, "Thomas Davis" notifications@github.com wrote:
I'm being picky here, I think personalDetails makes sense but is there
anything shorter or with less syllables. The other root level elements are
short and sweet "work, education, awards,skills"Though in the context of writing your resume, it is all personal already,
so maybe details could work.If I didn't convince anyone, +1 personalDetails, though sort of +1 to
details from me too.—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#68 (comment)
.
@thomasdavis Why pick something short (e.g. bio) or imprecise (e.g. details) if we can use the precise term personalDetails that you can find several references for? I don't think the extra syllables or extra bytes will do harm to the spec.
I think details is a bit vague. If we really need as little syllables as possible, just personal could be an option. So you get root level sections personal, work, education etc. Goes nicely together.
Note:
ADJ personal
NOUN personalDetails
NOUN work
NOUN education
There are many details on a resume/CV, so detail can indeed mean many things in this context.
How about bioDetails?
I was more thinking of it as:
personal : work : education :: personal section : work section : education section :: personal details : work details : education details
In that sense, the labels are really shorthand for something longer, and so they're all adjectives.
I'm not sold on "personal" though. It seems like everything in the JSON could be considered "personal".
As far as "bio", either everything in the JSON could fit into a "bio" category (if you consider the broad meaning of bio) or else "bio" should only be a string (if you consider the restricted meaning as a synonym of "summary", like Twitter does).
Is this category supposed to be a catch-all for fields that don't fit in any other categories?
Sorry, but I think we're making a simple matter very complicated. We almost reached consensus on personalDetails, which I still like. I get the syllable argument by @thomasdavis, but I don't think anything shorter will do, going by all the arguments :)
So I go back to +1 for personalDetails.
Agree.
+1 personalDetails
Agree, +1 for personalDetails
(My attempts at coming up with convincing arguments to keep "bio" or to prefer "about" failed. So I'm down with "personal*".)
I don't mind that "personal" is an adjective.
We didn't mind that education and work are singular while interests is plural either.
"personalDetails" looks stilted around the other categories to me. Should we call those workDetails and interestDetails too? Or will there be appearing a "personalOverview" to contrast the details? ;)
Here is a list of sites and what they each call this particular section:
Facebook: "about" > "basic info"
AngelList: "basics"
Google Plus: "about" > "basic info"
StackExchange: "bio"
SoundCloud: "personal"
LinkedIn: "overview"
Yelp: "about me"
EDIT: originally I had "about" for facebook and google plus, but those are actually the high level sections, whereas "basic info" refers to the subsection that contains things like birth date, gender, etc.
I don't mind that "personal" is an adjective.
Me neither, that's why I came up with it.
We didn't mind that education and work are singular while interests is plural either.
True.
"personalDetails" looks stilted around the other categories to me. Should we call those workDetails and interestDetails too? Or will there be appearing a "personalOverview" to contrast the details? ;)
I agree. In the end, I backed personalDetails because @opensourcegrrrl brought up the grammar argument. So we have to choose between shortness/conciseness and grammatically sound/consistent.
Also, based on this list, I'd point out a few things:
- about and basic info are the most popular it seems
- if we consider how many people in the world are familiar with an "about" or "basic info" section containing the details we're referring to, it turns out to massively dwarf the number of people that are familiar with the other terms (we're talking billions versus tens to hundreds of millions)
- "bio" can be confusing because Twitter, Coderwall, and other sites have a freetext input called "bio."
- As @wdoekes mentioned, "personalDetails" looks stilted around the other categories.
I think everyone already agrees that bio was not the way to go. The discussion now is that personalDetails looks odd compared to the other root-level elements, like work and education.
Although about is indeed popular as you point out, I feel that it's more "vague" than personal.
Arguably everything in your resume is "about" you, but now everything is "personal".
Yeah you could argue that everything falls under "personal" in the same way that you could argue everything falls under "about." The only super popular section for which you can't make that argument is "basicInfo."
I don't agree with you. work doesn't have anything to do with my personal details. It is, however, "about" me. "basicInfo" has exactly the same problem as "personalDetails" so in that case we might as well go with "personalDetails".
There's also "basics" - pretty clever term by AngelList, IMO.
Also, your education, hobbies and skills are absolutely personal IMO. The only thing that wouldn't be considered personal would be your work. This is evident from the original distinction between "personal" and "work" emails and phone numbers.
Let's have @thomasdavis and @opensourcegrrrl chime in, because we're going in circles here :)
Thanks for the additional context. I brought up the grammar as a note for consideration, not necessarily that I would sway one way or the other because of it. Upon seeing the new term basics, I prefer it most of all. @rxl, it is indeed clever.
+1 for basics
When filling out any form, one usually "start[s] with the basics." Also, it makes me think that if you're at a party, you typically start off by saying hello and introducing yourself by telling someone what your name is. Then you get into your line of work, interests, etc.
I'm okay with basics.
Here is a list of sites and what they each call this particular section:
This is not going to help because your social networks are not a resume application. They call it about or bio because you fill in exacatly that: some details about you, your short biography. They don't have all the other records, so this is far from being related.
We didn't mind that education and work are singular while interests is plural either.
The words "education" and "work" are abstract, just as "nature" or "luck". This is why you don't use the plural form here. Writing "educations" or "works" is either just plain wrong or has a different meaning. For "interests", this is different. Well, just simple grammar.
"personalDetails" looks stilted around the other categories to me. Should we call those workDetails and interestDetails too?
No, because "personal details" is a set phrase which I've given two credible references for. I don't know why you're trying to make nonsense of the other titles now.
Your alternatives such as bio and basics are just much too broad, general and unspecific.
+basics as well
basics++, any other takers?
Well, yes, although it's not as accurate as personalDetails, it's short and simple, and better than bio. So +1!
I'm still leaning towards personal because it's short and more descriptive. But with so many going for basics, let's go for that then :)
Issue elevated to PR Needed