[email protected] writes: > Actually this isn't clear enough for my English: > > WWWOFFLE Request Already Recorded > Your request for URL > http://www... > has already been recorded for download. > > I would say: > > WWWOFFLE Request Previously Recorded > Your request for URL > http://www... > has already been recorded for download. > So there is no point in you asking this additional time, Holmes :-) > > Or something. > > Hmmm, 'previously' might not imply still on the queue though. > Anyway, 'already' for me is the common word companies use to say 'really > in the queue'.
The reason that I use the word "Already" rather than "Previously" is because "Already" tells you that the request is currently recorded while "Previously" only tells you that it was once recorded (which includes the case that "Already" implies). I don't think that there is any point in telling the user that they are wasting their time. The chances are that they clicked the link without knowing (or being sure) if they have already requested it. I wouldn't want to alienate the users by telling them not to do it again (even if in a humorous way). > Yes, if one compares the > WWWOFFLE Request Recorded and > WWWOFFLE Request Already Recorded > messages, one will know the difference. > However the latter means the former if one has never encountered the former. The two mesages are identical apart from the word "already" which appears twice in the second page and not at all in the first. -- Andrew. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Andrew M. Bishop [email protected] http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/ WWWOFFLE users page: http://www.gedanken.demon.co.uk/wwwoffle/version-2.9/user.html
