On 30 March 2013 17:10, Justin B Rye <[email protected]> wrote: > Daniel Hartwig wrote: >> >> Right, and I do not see how ‘visual mode’ is misleading? > > I've explained it already, but the reason it's not obvious to you is > that you're not some
> slow-witted, ignorant newbie, > and therefore don't > have much practice looking at documentation from the appropriate > angle. Ok, I was not aware that the release notes were attempting to cater to such a special interest group. > You're using the term "visual mode" to distinguish that UI > from another one, which is therefore... what, "olfactory mode"? Are > users not expected to read "Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]" using > their eyes? That would be the command line interface, which is more verbal than visual in nature. > The term "visual mode" is a fossil from the days when vi was an > innovatively friendly piece of interface design. > >> By the way, >> current aptitude manual prefers the term ‘visual interface’, ‘mode’ is >> used only once and I have just changed that. > > So even if our policy is "stick to the canonical label", we ought to > change it. No, this was just a note. The two terms are similar enough with the key word being visual. Both documents have used their respective terms for some time, so no pressing reason to change. > Alternatively, if you still think "visual" is a valid > description as well as just an arbitrary label, I do not think it is an arbitrary label. > why shouldn't we use > other valid descriptions as well? > Consistency with the aptitude manual. If you do not care for that, then do what you like. I don't see any reason to change it in aptitude, but then I am not in the habit of catering to the aforementioned special interest group. Regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/can3vercyv6xyg+66mxoxtxomuax+yzys9co5go132jjwkxg...@mail.gmail.com
