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. -- Neil Drumm http://delocalizedham.com
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? 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? -Derek (dww)
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
On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Neil Drumm wrote:
- Avoid use of "Taxonomy" in the UI. The overall system, despite the module name, is "Categories."
-1 for this. It used to be called "Taxonomy", but was changed to "Categories" for some reason. Go back to calling it Taxonomy. Among other things, this will be a signal to people that they may need to think a bit about it. "Categories" is something that everybody thinks they already understand correctly, but everybody's understanding is different. Ricky The information transmitted in this electronic communication is intended only for the person or entity to whom it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of or taking of any action in reliance upon this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this information in error, please contact the Compliance HelpLine at 800-856-1983 and properly dispose of this information.
On Nov 14, 2007, at 21:17 , Richard Morse wrote:
On Nov 14, 2007, at 3:09 PM, Neil Drumm wrote:
- Avoid use of "Taxonomy" in the UI. The overall system, despite the module name, is "Categories."
-1 for this. It used to be called "Taxonomy", but was changed to "Categories" for some reason. Go back to calling it Taxonomy. Among other things, this will be a signal to people that they may need to think a bit about it. "Categories" is something that everybody thinks they already understand correctly, but everybody's understanding is different.
I completely agree with you, Richard. It's the install profiles that should make the difference, as has been pointed out in other recent devel threads. Create a default "Tags" vocabulary in a blog install profile, and people who don't want to bother with learning the more advanced tagging systems, will be just fine with just that one vocabulary. Once they start exploring Drupal, they'll gladly learn more about Taxonomy. Wim Leers ~ http://wimleers.com/work
- Avoid use of "Taxonomy" in the UI. The overall system, despite the module name, is "Categories."
-1 for this. It used to be called "Taxonomy", but was changed to "Categories" for some reason. Go back to calling it Taxonomy.
I completely agree with you, Richard.
<AOL>Me too</AOL>: use precisely one of these words throughout, and it looks like (for URL reasons) "taxonomy" is the harder one to get rid of. That at least removes the main *inherent* ambiguity in the system: the rest of the problems are IMHO caused by the loadedness of words in other contexts. Word back from a tame librarian: ) How about 'descriptor'? (It does presuppose that they're descriptive, ) though.) Then you can have 'collections' of descriptors. Inelegant ) and abstract, but that's the price of avoiding terms which are weighed ) down with existing connotations. ) ) Archivists talk about 'fonds' and 'sub-fonds', so I wouldn't ask them. Moral of the story: forget about librarians, unless you're after a book. Cheers, J-P -- J-P Stacey +44 (0)1608 811870 http://torchbox.com
participants (5)
-
Derek Wright -
J-P Stacey -
Neil Drumm -
Richard Morse -
Wim Leers