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 ***
[libreoffice-documentation] BrOffice org in trouble?
From someone in BrOffice org i got this email ... Tom could you be kind enough to post the following to the documentation list ? - If I get further into this discussion don't worry, I'll re-join myself. - To the Documentation Team / TDF: We the Brazilian members of the TDF community are having a problem: We believe that the NGO BrOffice.org and it's current directors DO NOT represent our interests any-more. A group of us are in the verge of breaking with this NGO and as so we would continue our work with the BrOffice Suite (the Brazilian version/brand of LiO). We are in the midst of a discussion on starting to translate the Guides. But here is where things get a bit murky: 1) We want to know if we can start this enterprise with the blessing of the TDF and specially the Docs Team. 2) Would the Docs Team consider to open a venue for us, even though we might be breaking with one of the founders of TDF (and representative on LiO in Brazil) ? 3) As a possible rogue team could we have access to Alfresco and could we get some help to format our workflow in this platform? I will maintain myself out of the Docs list so you can discuss this within the list without embarrassments, unless I am asked to return and resume discussion on-list. Thank you all My feeling is that from our point-of-view it would be quite easy. They seem to be worrying about things that are not a problem. However, NGO status means a fully formed and registered organisation that can deal with funding issues and maintain a bank-account and stuff. It is a shame to lose that sort of status but these things do happen, as we well know (even those of us that are new here). Regards from Tom :) -- 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] BrOffice org in trouble?
Hi, :-) There's absolutely no reason why they can't use Alfresco. Speaking personally, I'll give all the help and cooperation I can, which obviously includes setting up a working space for them. 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] Re: Terminology: selecting is not enough!
Documentation and training material for USERS of GUIs specify it like that. The distinction might be more noticeable if you are not using the mouse. Like I said, in some contexts it is clear, and in other phrasing it is wrong. I'd rather be consistent and avoid the problem. -- View this message in context: http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Terminology-selecting-is-not-enough-tp2507713p2508650.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 ***
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 ***
[libreoffice-documentation] LibreOffice Community starts 50,000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation
LibreOffice Community starts 50,000 Euro challenge for setting-up its foundation German-based model provides best stability and safety for users, adopters, developers and enterprises Race for funds open until March 21st The Internet, February 16th, 2011 - The community around LibreOffice, the free office productivity suite, today announced its fifty-thousand Euro challenge for setting-up The Document Foundation as a legal entity. The race for funds is open until March 21st 2011, which marks the beginning of Spring in the northern hemisphere. All users - especially enterprises - are invited to donate to the capital stock of the future foundation. After thorough investigation, the Steering Committee came to the conclusion that a foundation based in Germany would provide the best stability, not only for our users, but also for adopters, developers and enterprises. For achieving this stability, a capital stock of at least 50,000 Euros is considered best practice in Germany, says Florian Effenberger, Steering Committee member of The Document Foundation. Now that we have our first release of LibreOffice, which has been downloaded and installed all around the world, the time has come to legally establish the future home for our community. All donations will be used for setting-up The Document Foundation, and after the fifty thousand Euros has been collected for the capital stock, donations over the top of that sum will be fed directly into the future foundation's budget to cover operating costs. Should the race for funds not succeed, The Document Foundation will use the donations to incorporate itself in a different country that requires less capital stock, such as the United Kingdom. To achieve their ambitious goal of a Foundation in Germany in just five weeks, the community has set-up a dedicated website with detailed information at http://challenge.documentfoundation.org The site will also give adopters, community members and corporate sponsors a voice, and will have special features rolled out at the accomplishment of each donation milestone. We have seen wide support from many organizations, and the amount of volunteer work that has been put into The Document Foundation is just amazing. Without people donating their free time, knowledge and creativity to what will be the future home of LibreOffice, we wouldn't be where we are today. However, volunteer work alone can't fund the necessary capital stock, which is why we have started a public race for donations, especially targeting contributions from enterprises and public administrations adopting LibreOffice, and those interested in an independent, vital and growing ecosystem around free office productivity software, Florian Effenberger adds. Information about LibreOffice can be found at http://www.libreoffice.org The home of The Document Foundation is at http://www.documentfoundation.org About The Document Foundation The Document Foundation has the mission of facilitating the evolution of the OOo Community into a new, open, independent, and meritocratic organization within the next few months. An independent Foundation is a better reflection of the values of our contributors, users and supporters, and will enable a more effective, efficient and transparent community. TDF will protect past investments by building on the achievements of the first decade, will encourage wide participation within the community, and will co-ordinate activity across the community. Media Contacts for TDF Florian Effenberger (Germany) Mobile: +49 151 14424108 - E-mail: flo...@documentfoundation.org Olivier Hallot (Brazil) Mobile: +55 21 88228812 - E-mail: olivier.hal...@documentfoundation.org Charles H. Schulz (France) Mobile: +33 6 98655424 - E-mail: charles.sch...@documentfoundation.org Italo Vignoli (Italy) Mobile: +39 348 5653829 - E-mail: italo.vign...@documentfoundation.org -- Florian Effenberger flo...@documentfoundation.org Steering Committee and Founding Member of The Document Foundation Tel: +49 8341 99660880 | Mobile: +49 151 14424108 Skype: floeff | Twitter/Identi.ca: @floeff -- 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 ***
