Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough!
On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 23:59 -0800, JDługosz wrote: I noticed in the chapters I'm working on that often various things, such as all the items on the various pages of the Options dialog, it refers to selecting an option. In one place it was more noticeable in the user was directed to select something in the dialog. In that case, the terminology is clearly wrong. Selecting is not the same as operating on the widget. Selecting directs the attention to it, and another operation may then be performed, such as toggling a check box. I suppose in some context where the option itself is referred to in an imperative sense, saying the option is selected is OK and in fact I didn't notice initially. But you'd have to be careful about the wording of the sentence: are you being imperative or directing the user's action? It's more consistent and easier to just use a word that always works. To that end, I'm changing whatever descriptive phrase was used to enabled (antonym: disabled). That works for any type of control (check box, radio box, combo-box). I'm also trying to be more careful about wording things to reflect the desired state, rather than the action. I.e. clicking on an option doesn't necessarily enable it: it will toggle it, and you shouldn't click on it unless it was off before. So don't (just) direct the user to click on something to achieve an effect. Rather, the effect occurs when the option is enabled. And of course this is the very case in which merely selecting it doesn't do anything other than make the gui draw a selection rectangle around that item. From a programmer's POV, that's what select does. However, from an ordinary USER's POV, select turns it on and deselect turns it off. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough!
Hi :) I can totally agree with both points of view. I think select and de-select are probably easier to understand for more users although it is good to know why i felt uncomfortable about it! Enabled as the opposite of disabled is more uncomfortable politically since people in wheelchairs (a growing segment of society) are often said to be disabled despite the fact that there might only be a very limited number of things they can't do so well and many others they may do better. So, for a lot of office users the words might be uncomfortable. Select and de-select are safe even if i do still shudder a bit when de-select is used. Generally it is better to stick with a word that is used a lot in documentation even if it is blatantly wrong or used badly but consistently. Flagging it up by emailing the list but not changing the documentation is the best way of handling that sort of thing. My pet hate is the use of , before and or but. It is bad English but good American so i have to try to stop myself from correcting it if i ever get around to doing any work. Oddly i prefer lower-case i to distinguish it from 1 or l and because i think it look friendlier despite it being wrong. Regards from Tom :) From: Jean Hollis Weber jeanwe...@gmail.com To: documentation@libreoffice.org Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 8:54:05 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough! On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 23:59 -0800, JDługosz wrote: I noticed in the chapters I'm working on that often various things, such as all the items on the various pages of the Options dialog, it refers to selecting an option. In one place it was more noticeable in the user was directed to select something in the dialog. In that case, the terminology is clearly wrong. Selecting is not the same as operating on the widget. Selecting directs the attention to it, and another operation may then be performed, such as toggling a check box. I suppose in some context where the option itself is referred to in an imperative sense, saying the option is selected is OK and in fact I didn't notice initially. But you'd have to be careful about the wording of the sentence: are you being imperative or directing the user's action? It's more consistent and easier to just use a word that always works. To that end, I'm changing whatever descriptive phrase was used to enabled (antonym: disabled). That works for any type of control (check box, radio box, combo-box). I'm also trying to be more careful about wording things to reflect the desired state, rather than the action. I.e. clicking on an option doesn't necessarily enable it: it will toggle it, and you shouldn't click on it unless it was off before. So don't (just) direct the user to click on something to achieve an effect. Rather, the effect occurs when the option is enabled. And of course this is the very case in which merely selecting it doesn't do anything other than make the gui draw a selection rectangle around that item. From a programmer's POV, that's what select does. However, from an ordinary USER's POV, select turns it on and deselect turns it off. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough!
I have another problem with the enabled/disabled terminology -- I think it can easily be misunderstood as modifiable/unmodifiable (available/grayed out). This terminology is not in common use and I think it would be more confusing than helpful. Often click would be a reasonable substitute, but I have no problem with select and definitely prefer it for options in a list, for example. On 2/16/2011 5:20 AM, Tom Davies wrote: Hi :) I can totally agree with both points of view. I think select and de-select are probably easier to understand for more users although it is good to know why i felt uncomfortable about it! Enabled as the opposite of disabled is more uncomfortable politically since people in wheelchairs (a growing segment of society) are often said to be disabled despite the fact that there might only be a very limited number of things they can't do so well and many others they may do better. So, for a lot of office users the words might be uncomfortable. Select and de-select are safe even if i do still shudder a bit when de-select is used. Generally it is better to stick with a word that is used a lot in documentation even if it is blatantly wrong or used badly but consistently. Flagging it up by emailing the list but not changing the documentation is the best way of handling that sort of thing. My pet hate is the use of , before and or but. It is bad English but good American so i have to try to stop myself from correcting it if i ever get around to doing any work. Oddly i prefer lower-case i to distinguish it from 1 or l and because i think it look friendlier despite it being wrong. Regards from Tom :) From: Jean Hollis Weberjeanwe...@gmail.com To: documentation@libreoffice.org Sent: Wed, 16 February, 2011 8:54:05 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough! On Tue, 2011-02-15 at 23:59 -0800, JDługosz wrote: I noticed in the chapters I'm working on that often various things, such as all the items on the various pages of the Options dialog, it refers to selecting an option. In one place it was more noticeable in the user was directed to select something in the dialog. In that case, the terminology is clearly wrong. Selecting is not the same as operating on the widget. Selecting directs the attention to it, and another operation may then be performed, such as toggling a check box. I suppose in some context where the option itself is referred to in an imperative sense, saying the option is selected is OK and in fact I didn't notice initially. But you'd have to be careful about the wording of the sentence: are you being imperative or directing the user's action? It's more consistent and easier to just use a word that always works. To that end, I'm changing whatever descriptive phrase was used to enabled (antonym: disabled). That works for any type of control (check box, radio box, combo-box). I'm also trying to be more careful about wording things to reflect the desired state, rather than the action. I.e. clicking on an option doesn't necessarily enable it: it will toggle it, and you shouldn't click on it unless it was off before. So don't (just) direct the user to click on something to achieve an effect. Rather, the effect occurs when the option is enabled. And of course this is the very case in which merely selecting it doesn't do anything other than make the gui draw a selection rectangle around that item. From a programmer's POV, that's what select does. However, from an ordinary USER's POV, select turns it on and deselect turns it off. --Jean -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
Re: [libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough!
That's OK, too, for checkbox (tickbox?) items, and maybe radio buttons. I think our terminology list needs to be updated and reviewed for the preferred way/ways to express this for the different UI items. I doubt there's a one-size-fits-all solution, though for me select comes closest. I'll put something together. Until we've agreed on the way we want to go, I don't think there should be any blanket changes to the existing terminology. On 2/16/2011 8:36 AM, David Nelson wrote: Hi, :-) I often use activate or deactivate. Or, speaking more loosely, switch on and switch off. David Nelson -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
[libreoffice-documentation] Terminology: selecting is not enough!
I noticed in the chapters I'm working on that often various things, such as all the items on the various pages of the Options dialog, it refers to selecting an option. In one place it was more noticeable in the user was directed to select something in the dialog. In that case, the terminology is clearly wrong. Selecting is not the same as operating on the widget. Selecting directs the attention to it, and another operation may then be performed, such as toggling a check box. I suppose in some context where the option itself is referred to in an imperative sense, saying the option is selected is OK and in fact I didn't notice initially. But you'd have to be careful about the wording of the sentence: are you being imperative or directing the user's action? It's more consistent and easier to just use a word that always works. To that end, I'm changing whatever descriptive phrase was used to enabled (antonym: disabled). That works for any type of control (check box, radio box, combo-box). I'm also trying to be more careful about wording things to reflect the desired state, rather than the action. I.e. clicking on an option doesn't necessarily enable it: it will toggle it, and you shouldn't click on it unless it was off before. So don't (just) direct the user to click on something to achieve an effect. Rather, the effect occurs when the option is enabled. And of course this is the very case in which merely selecting it doesn't do anything other than make the gui draw a selection rectangle around that item. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Terminology-selecting-is-not-enough-tp2507713p2507713.html Sent from the Documentation mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to documentation+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/documentation/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***
