[22:00] <evanrmurphy> andrew_sayers: I'm considering that "FlowQ" might be marginally better than "Flowq" (somehow easier for me to process, more reminiscent of "FAQ"). Thoughts?
[22:01] <andrew_sayers> There's already a program called FlowQ though.
[22:02] <andrew_sayers> It's in a pretty tangential area, which is why I figured it was okay so long as it's not completely identical.
[22:03] <evanrmurphy> Ah. :)
[22:09] <andrew_sayers> Anyway, I'm done for the day.  Until tomorrow.
[22:23] <evanrmurphy> andrew_sayers: I like the upper limit of 7 (and its justification) on branch node answers, but when it comes to the longest route to action nodes, 7 strikes me as high. I think most users would be find it irritating to click through 7 questions before finding a semi-definitive answer to their real question.
[22:25] <evanrmurphy> I'm not sure I have a better upper limit to define, but my point is that it may be more important to keep a Flowq route a good deal shorter than 7, whereas a multiple-choice list of 7 isn't too bad.
[22:28] <evanrmurphy> The other problem with long routes is that each node a user passes through, the more likely s/he is to not perceive the answer to his/her question as one of the listed ones and instead choose "None of the above" to ask directly in the forum.
[22:28] <evanrmurphy> This detail aside, I'm impressed so far with what you have at https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Flowq, and I just subscribed.
[22:40] <evanrmurphy> andrew_sayers: Can you send me a link to the other project "FlowQ"?