The wording of several questions in this survey speaks to current users of LW-DITA, of which there will not be too many, as we are still in a concept phase of defining it. To get input from areas that we hope to be targeting with LW-DITA, this should be changed to address their current practice and ask what advantages they would expect from using LW-DITA. Depending on the target audience for the survey, an introduction about DITA vs LW-DITA might or might not be relevant.
Question 3 seems to lean toward a community that is currently using other lightweight content solutions, but asks which tools are being used to create LW-DITA content. I would expect not a single option to be checked by anyone. The question seems to ask which tools are currently used to create the type of content that could be authored in LW-DITA, but as hardly anyone knows LW-DITA that should be described in a different manner. JSON should be removed from the list of authoring tools in any case, as it is a format, not a tool.
Apart from these general remarks, I believe there is at least one error in the elements listed for question 6. The [pre] element is Preformatted text. If Prerequisite is meant, it should be [prereq], but I don't think that is one of the basic block elements for generic authoring.
My 2 cents.
Op 28 juni 2016 19:34:30 +02:00, schreef :