Ok, in the interest of “Perfect is the enemy of Good” I’ve set up the following categories
This doesn’t have to be the final list, nor does it have to be the final names. It’s a start.
Oh, and please suggest better descriptions.
I’ve moved all of the existing topic to one of the new categories.
Please feel free to move them to other categories as you see fit.
so if i wanted to share some anecdotes about my experiences as a teacher the overall tone of the post would dictate what category i should put it under?
also, @enceladus borges is one of my favorites. delighted to see you quoting him so appropriately.
Thanks for getting categories rolling. Taxonomy is always controversial.
I’m glad that we’re evolving categories. Can I agitate for color-coded categories as well? The defaults appear to have delivered us a very similar set of neutral colors for our categories.
And while I’m agitating, I’d like to agitate for a palette that is friendly to participants with color blindness. I’m happy to take on the chore if granted the perms to do it.
As Discourse is theme based, could we go the whole-hog and offer a Colourblindness-friendly theme? I’d expect something close to already exist that could be further adapted if needed, (because, well, Discourse) but even if not, I’d expect the theming standard to be reasonably friendly. (ie, not just a crud hack.)
[Editted to tag @messana, as this was supposed to be a reply to their reply.]
(I’d be surprised if there wasn’t already a pre-built theme somewhere that hasn’t done most of the lifting - though I couldn’t find direct reference to one on a search of the discourse board.)
I don’t believe the category colors are affected by the theme at all. Here’s what the category interface looks like:
I should be able to implement the pallette that @tinoesroho shared pretty easily, which should at least give us some differentiation.
And now we have colors.
No need for these to be permanent. We’ll probably tackle them later as part of an overall site design.
Pretty. Perhaps not stylish (
) but pretty.
[Editted to add:] While I mostly know “Nothing about us without us” from an autism context, I think it’s a good general rule of thumb, and would feel happier with input and/or feedback from someone directly affected, even if it’s private PM to @LockeCJ or @tinoesroho.
(I don’t want to be that person in a steamroller)
This is now very off-topic, but if you’re looking at the overall site style (and any optional themes) I find https://accessibility.blog.gov.uk/2016/09/02/dos-and-donts-on-designing-for-accessibility/
a very straightforward guide for document creation. Some of it might be useful to you in this.
Yes, it’s UK gov, but it’s civil service,
not political, and is the Government Digital Initiative, which did amazing things, until their funding was gutted.
Taxonomy…
Would Anger be a reasonable fit? I’ve tried to keep few categories with broad application, but if there’s enough support for it, it’s easy enough to add.
News fits at the moment because it was something that someone inportant said.
ETA: I just noticed the typo, and I’m leaving it because I like it better that way.
Could I suggest, with a nod to Salman Rushdie, a category of fury? On the basis that anger is just an emotion, like violent criminals who get angry with someone for no reason, but fury implies fury at something.
I was getting ready to reply to @LockeCJ and suggest “Duh” as the category for all our Water Still Wet posting needs.
This particular post could fit under a few categories, though, depending on the mood of the OP. 
Being an admin, I’m not sure what others can see.
When you create a topic, do you have the option of tagging it?
Would the anger category with a tag of fury be a reasonable compromise?
Do we need an extra category? Why not just tag it with Anger or Fury?
Yup, I can tag. Probably a good enough compromise.
(Also @LockeCJ, @IronEdithKidd, @Enkita)
From a UI perspective, I’d agree, and certainly advise not. The magic number for interface elements is seven (plus or minus two), which (we were taught) is tied to short-term memory.
Most people can juggle seven ‘things’ in short term memory, while some can go to nine, and some can only go to five.
So if you want people to parse the categories at-a-glance (and not have to ‘swap mode’ to hunt through your list) the smart advice is to keep it to seven, or five if you can. 
– Or come up with a conceptual difference, and subdivide the list with a UI element. Most well designed interfaces follow this, even down to drop-down menus. ‘List hunting’ still works, but is slower, and registers as ‘harder work’ (because it is) and things start to risk getting missed.
(This is probably why Discourse has sub-categories - for seven at the ‘top’ level, then the different kinds of ‘happy’ under one, ‘anger’ under another, and so on. ;))
This is turning into quite a derail though, so I’m happy to be forked off (sic) into another thread (and maybe category -woo, recursion)
