Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2004 15:28:45 -0400
To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>
From: Colleen Cahill <ccah at earthlink.net>
Subject: [WSFA] Re: Sign-in sheet
Reply-To: WSFA members <WSFAlist at WSFA.org>

Since both my names start with C, it has little effect on me.  But I do
look for things to be arrange by last name, not first. I agree that the
order of last name, first name seems regimented, but not enough to care
much about.

I like the idea of last names in CAPS.  Scanning would be easier.  The rest
seem like a lot of work for little pay back.

Don't care if we segregate the officers. :-)

Colleen

At 04:25 PM 10/10/2004, you wrote:
>Lee Gilliland suggested that instead of having "Firstname Lastname" on
>the sign-in sheet at meetings, that I have "Lastname, Firstname", to
>make it easier to find names.  I think that would look too bureaucratic,
>formal, and unfriendly.
>
>I'm puzzled that Lee even has an issue about it, since her name is in
>the officer section, not sorted alphabetically.
>
>Other possibilities include:
>
>* Sorting alphabetically by first name, like they do in Iceland.
>
>* "Firstname LASTNAME", i.e. the last name in all caps.
>
>* Vertically aligning both the first and last names, with a variable
>   number of spaces between them rather than just one.  (But then I
>   couldn't fit as many names on.)
>
>* Vertically aligning just the last name.
>
>* Double spacing, i.e. a blank line between each non-blank line, like
>   on a manuscript.  (But then I couldn't fit as many names on.)
>
>Some of these alternatives can be combined.
>
>Does anyone have any preferences?
>
>A couple people have suggested that I list people in order of their
>probability of attending (since I compute that number anyway, so as
>to decide which names go on the list).  I'm pretty sure that wasn't
>a serious suggestion.
>
>Also, should I abolish the separate officers' section?
>
>Thanks.

Colleen R. Cahill
ccah at earthlink.net
Librarian by Profession, Reviewer by Avocation, Reader by Addiction