consider catering more to data scientists

[wikfeldt]

(related to #9)

I get the feeling that the first image on the front page suggests that HPC is the ultimate rung on the skills ladder. But lots of researchers don't need HPC, but need to improve their data science skills (mining, tidying, analyzing, modeling). Should data science be added as a separate category, or aspects of data science added to existing categories?

[rkdarst]

On Mon, Feb 03, 2020 at 11:10:38AM -0800, Kjartan Thor Wikfeldt wrote: (related to #9) I get the feeling that the first image on the front page suggests that HPC is the ultimate rung on the skills ladder. But lots of researchers don't need HPC, but need to improve their data science skills (mining, tidying, analyzing, modeling). Should data science be added as a separate category, or aspects of data science added to existing categories?

This is a good point, we should at least make the introduction sound better for data scientists. Most of the audience I am most directly supporting is data scientists anyway. I think a "data wrangling" or more generally "data handling" category would be a great addition. But it also opens up a whole lot more topics, something that is closer to academics. But I guess not too close, my feeling would be that most academic classes don't focus on that side of things. And give us a *lot* more stuff to find and add. So, who's in for this? My first thought for a rearrangement: * D = data * E = Scientific coding * F = Clusters & HPC * (a new "advanced data science tools?" dependent on D and E ?) * G = advanced HPC (??, or maybe just make a general "advanced"?)