On Nov 14, 2007 11:51 AM, Derek Wright <drupal@dwwright.net> wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 11:42 AM, Neil Drumm wrote:
Here is how to get this accomplished:
1. Design 2-3 new well-thought-out naming schemes. 2. Test each, and our current system, with 5 users. Chose users with various skill levels and various backgrounds in other software. 3. Objectively see what is best instead of subjectively speculating.
Let me know when you have a well-written usability report and I will write the patches.
While I appreciate your general approach, I'm forced to ask:
Is this the methodology that was followed which got us to the existing mixup of confusing terminology and inconsistencies in the UI?
No. As far as I know, the current labeling scheme was designed by the original developers and never really changed a whole lot, except relabeling most uses of "taxonomy" to "categories."
There's been an outpouring of support for the proposal to keep the existing terminology, but to use it consistently in the UI. Why is there resistance to just fixing that in D6 while we still can, instead of further delaying it with other hoops to jump through?
Consistency is absolutely necessary under any labeling system. At this point in Drupal 6's cycle, I would accept all consistency improvements and reject sweeping labeling changes of any UI. As I understand the current rules, they are: - Use the same names in the UI as we do in the API, properly capitalized and punctuated. That means Term, Tag, Vocabulary. - Avoid use of "Taxonomy" in the UI. The overall system, despite the module name, is "Categories." The point is-- objective analysis is the best way to settle debates with no clear answer. -- Neil Drumm http://delocalizedham.com