https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=50918

James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Priority|Normal                      |Lowest
             Status|REOPENED                    |ASSIGNED
           Assignee|rm...@wikimedia.org         |jforrester+veteambztickets@
                   |                            |wikimedia.org
            Summary|VisualEditor: Rename or     |VisualEditor: Come up with
                   |remove "Preformatted" in    |a different name for
                   |text formatting menu        |"Preformatted" in the text
                   |                            |formatting menu
           Severity|normal                      |enhancement

--- Comment #9 from James Forrester <jforres...@wikimedia.org> ---
(In reply to Dominic from comment #7)
> (In reply to James Forrester from comment #6)
> > (In reply to MZMcBride from comment #5)
> > 
> > I'm inclined to WONTFIX at this point…
> 
> I was under the impression that VisualEditor was about removing jargon

Sort-of.

Actually, it's about making it easy to edit content.


> and unneeded advanced features that clutter the user experience.

No.

In meeting the "making it easy to edit content" objective, we can't rope off
some content that is considered "too difficult" to explain nicely.


> All three of the other commenters here agreed that "Preformatted" is jargon
> that should at least be renamed using plain language.

Sure, but no-one has actually suggested something they think is better yet
(Chris suggested "monospace", but said he didn't like it, and I somewhat
agree). Until such time as someone suggests a better term, this is unfixable.


> And it's not really even clear why we expect "preformatted" to be a common
> enough formatting choice among VisualEditor users that it even merits the
> inclusion in that menu.

That's a more interesting question, yes, as I said in comment 6. But that's not
what other people's comments on this bug have been about.


> Your comment on WONTFIXing the report doesn't address the actual problem
> being raised.

Pick one. Either this bug is about removing "preformatted" as an option, in
which case WONTFIX stands, or it's about something else ("come up with a
different name"? "have a secondary system for less-common formats"? something
else?) and make it about that?



(In reply to MZMcBride from comment #8)
> Eh, this is a bad wontfix. My dictionary doesn't contain "preformatted"; we
> can probably come up with a better term.

See above.


> Regarding the user interface, it's a bit confusing why there's a text
> formatting menu (paragraph text and headings) next to another text
> formatting menu (bold, underline, computer code, etc.). It might make sense
> to move the artist currently known as preformatted to the bottom of the
> latter menu as it's not very commonly needed (about as commonly needed as
> needing to write "computer code" using VisualEditor, surely).

It's formatting vs. styling; one operates on paragraphs, the other on
selections (which can be smaller than a paragraph). I agree that it's confusing
(yay HTML and MediaWiki), but I think it would be more confusing to have things
in the same menu that do radically different things without distinction.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
Wikibugs-l mailing list
Wikibugs-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikibugs-l

Reply via email to