Re: [drupal-devel] what do you call a rose?
The problem here is: Who is the user? Is it the admin of a site? Or is it the user registering on a site. For that latter kind of user I do agree with you, for admins I do not.
You have a point, but what you have to remember is that not all admins are technical gurus like you :-) Sometimes the admin of a site is a newbie, or sometimes it is me. Haha. :-) Regards, Kobus
On Monday 03 October 2005 10:13, Kobus Myburgh wrote:
but what you have to remember is that not all admins are technical gurus like you Again: if one wants to be a successfull admin, one really needs to know more about Drupal. IMHO you cannot be a successfull car engineer if you dont know about the ideas behind an engine. But you cna be a successfull driver without that knowledge. You can only be a successfull admin if you know about nodes, menus, taxonomies etc. But you can be a user without all that knowledge.
This, however, does not mean that we cannot make things better and easier. But it means that we should not estimate our admins as complete morons. A moron cannot be an admin. Even if we make our admin area moron proof. So to turn this around: we can use correct yargon, for admins, for we can expect them to learn about that yargon. Esp if that means that in the end the admin knows better what it is about. (meaning: the yargon was used correct) Bèr
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Kobus Myburgh wrote:
The problem here is: Who is the user? Is it the admin of a site? Or is it the user registering on a site. For that latter kind of user I do agree with you, for admins I do not.
You have a point, but what you have to remember is that not all admins are technical gurus like you :-)
Sometimes the admin of a site is a newbie, or sometimes it is me. Haha. :-)
Well, my stance is that I rather educate people (even if it takes a mallet) rather than dumbing down things so that anybody can _think_ they understand them. Cheers, Gerhard
With all due respect, making something unnecessarily hard and then explaining what you made unnecessarily hard is not "educating" them. On 10/3/05, Gerhard Killesreiter <killesreiter@physik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote:
On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Kobus Myburgh wrote:
The problem here is: Who is the user? Is it the admin of a site? Or is it the user registering on a site. For that latter kind of user I do agree with you, for admins I do not.
You have a point, but what you have to remember is that not all admins are technical gurus like you :-)
Sometimes the admin of a site is a newbie, or sometimes it is me. Haha. :-)
Well, my stance is that I rather educate people (even if it takes a mallet) rather than dumbing down things so that anybody can _think_ they understand them.
Cheers, Gerhard
-- Dondley Communications http://www.dondleycommunications.com Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://www.communicateordie.com
On Monday 03 October 2005 17:42, Steve Dondley wrote:
With all due respect, making something unnecessarily hard and then explaining what you made unnecessarily hard is not "educating" them.
This is not what a mayority wants. It seems about everyone agrees whe need to improve usability. This discussion focuses around whether or not simplifying and removing (correct used, yet harder to grok) yargon with (easier to understand, but maybe not as correct) terms, will get us there. A lot of people seem to agree that calling things a rose make it appear a rose and thus make it look romantic. While others say, whether its a paper rose, a perfume with the smell of roses or a real rose make a big difference , whether your girl/boyfriend will find it a romantic gift. So, the original question was: should 'free tagging' rather be called 'folksonomy' because more people will be attracted to that term, or should we choose the more appropriate, yet less known term 'free tagging'. I really believe this discussion is NOT about whether or not we should make Drupal easier. I rearead the thread and see absolutely no-one arguing that we should leave it as it is, and settle for a hard to use Drupal. No-one. Bèr
So, the original question was: should 'free tagging' rather be called 'folksonomy' because more people will be attracted to that term, or should we choose the more appropriate, yet less known term 'free tagging'.
And I state, unequivocally: no. The feature called "free tagging" in core is very unlike the "folksonomy" that people who *know* what the term means will expect (and going far back, is equivalent to renaming "book" to "outliner"). Naming it "folksonomy", however, has about as much mind- numbing usability brilliance as re-naming "taxonomy" to "categories" does, so I suspect the term folksonomy will hit core any day now. -- Morbus Iff ( you are nothing without your robot car, NOTHING! ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ O'Reilly Author, Weblog, Cook: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
Morbus said what I think. +1 for calling taxonomy taxonomy and -1 for renaming free tagging. -Robert Morbus Iff wrote:
So, the original question was: should 'free tagging' rather be called 'folksonomy' because more people will be attracted to that term, or should we choose the more appropriate, yet less known term 'free tagging'.
And I state, unequivocally: no. The feature called "free tagging" in core is very unlike the "folksonomy" that people who *know* what the term means will expect (and going far back, is equivalent to renaming "book" to "outliner"). Naming it "folksonomy", however, has about as much mind- numbing usability brilliance as re-naming "taxonomy" to "categories" does, so I suspect the term folksonomy will hit core any day now.
He asked an either or question and you answered "no". So I'm quite unclear where you stand. And your sarcasm further clouds the issue. So which term do you prefer? On 10/3/05, Morbus Iff <morbus@disobey.com> wrote:
So, the original question was: should 'free tagging' rather be called 'folksonomy' because more people will be attracted to that term, or should we choose the more appropriate, yet less known term 'free tagging'.
And I state, unequivocally: no. The feature called "free tagging" in core is very unlike the "folksonomy" that people who *know* what the term means will expect (and going far back, is equivalent to renaming "book" to "outliner"). Naming it "folksonomy", however, has about as much mind- numbing usability brilliance as re-naming "taxonomy" to "categories" does, so I suspect the term folksonomy will hit core any day now.
-- Morbus Iff ( you are nothing without your robot car, NOTHING! ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ O'Reilly Author, Weblog, Cook: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
-- Dondley Communications http://www.dondleycommunications.com Communicate or Die: American Labor Unions and the Internet http://www.communicateordie.com
He asked an either or question and you answered "no". So I'm quite unclear where you stand. And your sarcasm further clouds the issue. So which term do you prefer?
My apologies. Let me apply usability to it: * See Morbus speak. * Speak Morbus speak! * Morbus doesn't like folksonomy. * Bad folksonomy bad! * Folksonomy is not free tagging! * Free tagging is not folksonomy! * If free tagging is not folksonomy... * then folksonomy is not free tagging! * Naming free tagging folksonomy is bad! * Bad folksonomy bad! Stay tuned for my sequel: "The Ugly Little Category". -- Morbus Iff ( you are nothing without your robot car, NOTHING! ) Culture: http://www.disobey.com/ and http://www.gamegrene.com/ O'Reilly Author, Weblog, Cook: http://www.oreillynet.com/pub/au/779 icq: 2927491 / aim: akaMorbus / yahoo: morbus_iff / jabber.org: morbus
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 03 Oct 2005, at 9:07 PM, Morbus Iff wrote:
My apologies. Let me apply usability to it:
* See Morbus speak. * Speak Morbus speak! * Morbus doesn't like folksonomy. * Bad folksonomy bad! * Folksonomy is not free tagging! * Free tagging is not folksonomy! * If free tagging is not folksonomy... * then folksonomy is not free tagging! * Naming free tagging folksonomy is bad! * Bad folksonomy bad!
Stay tuned for my sequel: "The Ugly Little Category". +1
=) - -- Adrian Rossouw Drupal developer and Bryght Guy http://drupal.org | http://bryght.com -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (Darwin) iD8DBQFDQZFmgegMqdGlkasRAlqDAJ9qeLD6SY4PGNNDUa2O/MmtzTLYwACgomTQ m1NlCBlkQc3WI+2TIrgTAsE= =ntVi -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On 3-Oct-05, at 11:59 AM, Steve Dondley wrote:
He asked an either or question and you answered "no". So I'm quite unclear where you stand. And your sarcasm further clouds the issue. So which term do you prefer?
free tagging, because that's what the functionality currently implemented does. And here's a "recipe" for making it work with Technorati automatically: http://wiki.bryght.com/wiki/technorati-tags- in-drupal-recipe Things free tagging has to do before it's a folksonomy: * relate tags to who created them/have them owned by users * have non-admin users tag content / add additional tags * have per user and global tag spaces, potentially overlapping (we only have global right now) -- Boris Mann http://www.bmannconsulting.com
I really believe this discussion is NOT about whether or not we should make Drupal easier. I rearead the thread and see absolutely no-one arguing that we should leave it as it is, and settle for a hard to use Drupal. No-one.
So rather than discussing this until we're blue, how about we invest some time in improving the stuff we all agree on. Huh? You guys seem to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk. When was the last time you spent more than 30 minutes reviewing patches, or implementing usability improvements? If it wasn't 'today', you better get to it NOW. :) -- Dries Buytaert :: http://www.buytaert.net/
On Monday 03 October 2005 22:59, Dries Buytaert wrote:
You guys seem to talk and talk and talk and talk and talk.
Yup. That is because we see things going into core that we reviewed and marked -1. And because we see things not getting in, that improve usability. Patching and reviewing obviously does not help us get any closer either, in these cases. Bèr
participants (9)
-
Adrian Rossouw -
Boris Mann -
Bèr Kessels -
Dries Buytaert -
Gerhard Killesreiter -
Kobus Myburgh -
Morbus Iff -
Robert Douglass -
Steve Dondley