56 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
56 lines
1.6 KiB
Markdown
# FAQ
|
|
|
|
## Why does Didactopus need ingestion and review tools?
|
|
|
|
Because useful course material often exists in forms that are difficult to activate for
|
|
serious self-directed learning. The issue is not just availability of information; it is
|
|
the effort required to transform that information into a usable learning domain.
|
|
|
|
## What problem is this trying to solve?
|
|
|
|
A common problem is the **activation energy hump**:
|
|
- the course exists
|
|
- the notes exist
|
|
- the syllabus exists
|
|
- the learner is motivated
|
|
- but the path from raw material to usable study structure is still too hard
|
|
|
|
Didactopus is meant to reduce that hump.
|
|
|
|
## Why not just read course webpages directly?
|
|
|
|
Because mastery-oriented use needs structure:
|
|
- concepts
|
|
- prerequisites
|
|
- projects
|
|
- rubrics
|
|
- review decisions
|
|
- trust statuses
|
|
|
|
Raw course pages do not usually provide these in a directly reusable form.
|
|
|
|
## Why have a review UI?
|
|
|
|
Because automated ingestion creates drafts, not final trusted packs. A reviewer still needs
|
|
to make explicit curation decisions.
|
|
|
|
## What can the SPA review UI do in this scaffold?
|
|
|
|
- inspect concepts
|
|
- edit trust status
|
|
- edit notes
|
|
- edit prerequisites
|
|
- resolve conflicts
|
|
- export a promoted reviewed pack
|
|
|
|
## Is this already a full production UI?
|
|
|
|
No. It is a local-first interactive scaffold with stable data contracts, suitable for
|
|
growing into a stronger production interface.
|
|
|
|
## Does Didactopus eliminate the need to think?
|
|
|
|
No. The goal is to reduce startup friction and organizational overhead, not to replace
|
|
judgment. The user or curator still decides what is trustworthy and how the domain should
|
|
be shaped.
|