I find the look and feel of this page a little bit awkward, particularly the text under the sub-heading "REFERENCES." This content could be referring to 1, 2, or 3 different documents, depending on how you are meant to interpret the use of italics, the presence/lack of hyperlink, etc. I am not sure if this is due to Jekyll behavior, intended design, or just quirkiness...? Should we use bullets/numbering/indents to set off individual entries?

(And if we do choose some kind of numbering: does it make sense to use a disciplined approach here to support any academic citations needed in future research papers?)

Looking at the "Updated Workplan" post, I find it hard to distinguish the name & credit info for the images from the surrounding text, because it is the same size, font, and style as the prose content. Can we change this--maybe use a sans serif or at least italics?

First GH issue!! Starting out small...

Comparing titles for Dave & Diana, I see differences in:
Format: "title1 and title2" versus "title1 (title2)"
Tone: "serious and silly" versus "silly (serious)"

Not sure if these are intentional? I think the format for Dave is preferable.

Add capability to review posts by tag and full archive.

Am having trouble converting to PNG, otherwise I would upload myself. Can we live with a JPG?

Sorry to nitpick but it's literally the first sentence on the webpage.

We are three public agencies, working together, to try and create better tools to analyze human-scale travel in congested, urban cities

sounds a lot better as

We are three public agencies, working together, trying to create better tools for analyzing human-scale travel in congested, urban cities

Currently you can't see it because of length of intro paragraph

Was just looking through old QPRs on this site, and noticed that somehow we skipped "Summer" in 2015. We submit reports in Jan(1) / Apr(4) / Jul(7) / Oct(10). The Library listing goes from "Spring 2015," which links to the 2015-07 PDF, to "Fall 2015," which links to the 2015-10 file, oops! To clean-up, we can choose to re-name from the first going forward or working backwards from the most recent. Happy to implement if you let me know which you think makes more sense.

at least, mine are.

twitter: @billyinseattle
plus: +BillyCharlton

I'm now the "Director of Data".

:-D

This is probably more of a reminder for later than anything that needs to be resolved now...

It sounds like other C10 grantees are not making a big effort on communications & outreach at this stage, but if they do build any web content, we should link to it in the text under "FUNDING PROGRAM" on the "META" page.

In the meantime, is it worth linking to the grantee agencies? Maybe one or more has a press release or a page about their travel modeling team or something?

FYI, there is a stray "s" on its own line above "how is that different" in section 2. Detailed representation of Individuals...

Also, in general, can we provide a little more white-space between graphics and subsequent text? Right now it's very crowded, particularly for the section headers. Maybe this is an attribute of Jekyll...? Hope it's not too hard to adjust.

In the TRL section of the Library page, clicking on "Calibration Plan" asks you to sign-in to Box, but we should store the file (currently here: [https://app.box.com/file/95315576529]) in a publicly accessible location. I'm happy to execute the change, but not sure whether it's better to move it to the PUBLIC folder on Box vs. putting it here on the website repo (similar to [http://fast-trips.mtc.ca.gov/library/ResearchTrack-PublicWorkplan.pdf]). Let me know if you have a logic to which docs live in each place.

Assuming it does not bog down the page, add/include:
-- Dave is "MTC Manager" and "Admin Lead"
-- Billy is leader for "Software" (Use of "Guru" does not convey lead status, esp w/ same title for L.Zorn)
-- Elizabeth is leader for "Communications & Outreach"

Is this intentional? Not sure it matters, but flagging in case site is not behaving properly.

I am not sure if this is the same as "Fix blog alignment" in the ReadMe... and I don't know if it's driven by a design choice or a site behavior issue.

Looking at the post called "Measuring Ourselves", I find it hard to see the "Metrics" after each "Goal." Part of the confusion is that some goals have multiple metrics, which we bullet, but then goals with single metrics get list in the shuffle when they just continue on the same line. I wonder if there is a simple formatting convention that would help? Could we do some kind of two-column layout ,or is that too complex?

The font sizes look mis-matched on some of the blog posts.
-- In "Measuring Ourselves" the text for "Capacity building and partnerships" is larger than the other two categories of metrics ("Tool implementation and deployment" and "Technology transfer / research dissemination").
-- In "Working together through bureaucratic fences", the first sub-heading is smaller than all of the others.

It looks like this happens because they were assigned different heading levels, which is probably not what you intended.

Browsing through the code, I see in partners.yml that you have info for CTR, UQ, UrbanLabs, TA, LMZ, and that you've grabbed images for them, too. But these partners do not show up on meta yet. Is that intentional, perhaps b/c of administrative/contracting concerns and/or needing to obtain permission to use content?

Just curious if there is any reason to distinguish the documents that we produce from external references produced by others? Later on, we'll have lots more entries under Deliverables and Progress Reports, and we may end up grouping them into separate homes, so it seems useful to think about this now.