On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 22:56 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Shaun McCance wrote: > > > > > What's the current stance on things like > > > > <http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143592> and > > > > <http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=143594>? > > > > > > Both of those bugs refer to explantory text in brackets after a > > > sentence in dialogs (it definately looks kind of ugly), specifically > > > in Gnome Terminal. > > The email provided very little explanation, it didn't even mention what > program was in question. A quick summary might help draw the attention of > those who are interested in the issue, and rather than complain about it > being missing I attempted to provide a useful summary. > > > > I think rephrasing to take things out of brackets would help, possibly > > > reorgansing the interface to be more self explanatory. Since these > > > are essentially tips it would make sense to put them in tooltips. > > > (Which is pretty much what dobey said.) > > > Of the five cases pointed out in these two reports, only three > > are providing parenthetical information on a particular label. > > 3 out of 5 ain't bad. I was going for summary but you are welcome to look > at it in more detail if it interests you. > > I intend to sit out of discussions on the terminal as much as possible but > since I'd already started and drafted a reply I went ahead and sent it. > I made no claim of having done detailed analysis. > > > Of those three, one uses the parenthetical to clarify meaning, > > while the other two use the parenthetical to provide examples. > > > Why remove them? > > You responded to my post rather than any other in the discussion and it > seems a lot like you are criticizing me.
I'm sorry, it really did come off that way. It wasn't intentional. I was moreso intending to comment on the topic as a whole, and your email was just a convenient starting point for me. > I did not say remove, I suggested rephrase. Either the explanatory text > needs to be there or it does not. There is no need to put examples behind > parenthesis. I have a tendency to use excessive amounts of punctuation > (lisp can do that to you) so it is a mistake I am all too familiar with > (also using todo as a single word and/or using "and/or" instead of > recognising OR is not XOR but includes an implied AND would be two other > mistakes I had to unlearn). Perhaps some of the phrases might benefit > from a rewording or being made more terse but since a user made the effort > of providing feedback I do hope the developers will give it a closer look. And I agree with you about rewording the labels that have parentheses in them. I was mostly defending the standalone explanatory labels, which I think should be acceptable in moderation. -- Shaun _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
