Elizabeth Matthis wrote: > Terminology does not get changed just because MS Word uses > it. It gets changed to benefit users, to make the software > more intuitive and self-explanatory. It gets changed so more > users who test OOo/SO will feel comfortable and not alienated.
+1 Peter wrote: > >I assume that most of my critiques of 2.0 will be ignored and > >tossed to the side, but I feel a need to voice them. Elizabeth wrote: > Your voice counts and is heard. But when there are valid > reasons to do something, you have to understand that your > opinion does not hold enough sway over data gathered from > possibly thousands of users. Furthermore, if we did make it the way Peter suggests, wouldn't this be ignoring and tossing aside a much larger group of people? Every time we make a change some people will approve and some disapprove. In general, we should go with whatever benefits most users. See below for an exception. > I'm sorry that often your musings and questions go unanswered, > but believe me, at engineering we have far too much to do to allow > us to make changes just for the fun of it. We also do not have time > to do PR for the changes on the mailing lists. +1 We can't have 2 weeks discussion followed by a week vote every time we change a text string. I don't think it's fair to complain that OOo development is slow, and at the same time demand that engineering hold a vote every time they change something. Those two goals are incompatible. Let's be reasonable people. It's ok to want enginneering to interact more with the lists. It's ok to want OOo to progress quickly. It's not ok to demand that both things be top priorities. The more interaction you expect from engineering, the slower OOo will go. Obviously, some interaction is important, so we need to strike a balance. For example, what Liz just did with her post, is interaction. > >On this one, there are like 120+ votes for the issue, so > >there are others that don't like the change. > > Yes, but the votes are from people who speak different > languages and I refuse to change the text is one language > based on feedback from users of a different language. +1 And here's an example of why above I said "in general". Some times the people voting for a change are not the most apt to recognize the implications of the change. It's like when people come here saying that we should add an outlook equivalent. Many of them think that it's just something we could do in an afternoon and there would be no implications for the rest of the software. I've had people tell me we should be able to "copy and paste" Thunderbird into the OOo codebase, and claimed I didn't know anything about coding because I didn't realize that... sigh... > The English name will remain "Styles and Formatting" because it > is more intuitive and self-explanatory. We have great > features, but if they are named obscure names nobody finds them. As someone who struggled with the name "Stylist" I think this is a good change. Each language should pick the name that is most intuitive in their linguistic and cultural context. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | There is no urge so great as for one man to Join OOoAuthors today! | edit another man's work. http://www.oooauthors.org | -- Mark Twain --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
