[Libreoffice-ux-advise] [Bug 141452] Rename Tools > Chapter Numbering back to Outline Numbering

[bugzilla-daemon at bugs.documentfoundation.org]

https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=141452

--- Comment #27 from Mike Kaganski <mikekaganski at hotmail.com> ---
(In reply to Eyal Rozenberg from comment #26)

OMG. Are you trying to make just anything that *you personally* touch in the
bug tracker to become completely unmanageable?

> (In reply to Mike Kaganski from comment #24)
> > Please note that you try to force some *dictionary* meaning of terms into
> > Writer. This is wrong.
> 
> It's not wrong. That is, users read text in an application's UI and
> interpret it according to the common meaning of the terms (the "dictionary"
> meaning). This will necessarily happen and cannot be defined as "wrong".
> while users can be educated about certain terms having a different meaning
> within an app, it's usually a good idea to minimize the extent to which that
> happens.

Any term used in an application needs to meet *several* criteria. Among them:
- Being consistent *inside the application*;
- Being *familiar* to users who intend to use it *in the most common case*;
- Following the common terminology in the industry...

and many more (being short, translatable, you name it). However, the criteria
have their *relative* weight.

Users having problems with any term because of inconsistent use inside the
program is a real bug. You claiming that users have problems with a term
because it doesn't fit the dictionary meaning is just words, until we made the
original term *self-consistent*, and *only after that* any *following* user
confusion could be treated as the term being poor itself.

So each time you mention a term used inconsistently inside a program, and try
to push your vision of dictionary-based approach, you just do it wrong
personally. The only proper order is as I described: make its use
self-consistent inside the program, then wait for user reports to see if
further actions are needed.

> > Outline, chapter, and heading are OK to (and *must*) have *special* and
> > specific meaning in Writer.
> 
> Technically, they _can_ have a very special and specific meaning in Writer,
> but why _must_ they have one? Or rather, why _must_ it be very different
> than the dictionary meaning?

No they are *not* very different. We need to use the words from common language
to create *associations* for the *most common* tasks associated with the term.
We need *not* pursuit complete match with dictionary article. Users use the
functionality *most often* when they crate headings for chapters (the words
used *here* in a dictionary meaning), and even when they don't have strictly
*chapters* in their documents, but, say, name them "sections", the "chapter"
word is likely to occur to them when looking for the functionality. Use of
*any* feature outside of the *originally intended* use case is common, but does
not require any rename until that use becomes frequent enough, uniform enough,
and in that process, the evolution would come through creation of some
tutorials/how tos, FAQS, etc., until it formed the clear vision how that new
use case fits into the terminology. You just claim some uses that don't yet
deserve the said attention. Users who need that use case are likely already
familiar with the original, most prominent use, and won't have problems with
that terminology *if* it's self-consistent (again: self-consistent in the sense
that it is used consistently to mean something specific in this program, not in
any broader sense).

> > When you write "Most documents people write
> > don't have Chapters anyway" (and the like), you are completely away from the
> > problem of correct use of specific Writer term, confusing different entities
> > (and making a potential fix much harder).
> 
> You are focusing on myself personally, but it is the _users_ who are
> "completely away" from the use of Writer terms you expect. A user writing a
> document with sections, whose heading paragraphs use styles Heading 1,
> Heading 2 etc., would assume a "Chapter Numbering" menu item is irrelevant
> to their document.

I can imagine that there might be a couple of users who would not recognize
Chapter Numbering as related to their task at first (but they could easily find
it using help: typing "heading" there immediately gives "headings --
numbering/paragraph styles", which leads to "Chapter Numbering"); however, I
fail to see how could you imagine *any* term to not have that property - anyone
not familiar to it would be possibly confused; and using the term familiar to
most is likely to ring a bell in most. (However, I still think that Chapter
Numbering is worse than Outline Numbering, because that was a term having its
established meaning in the industry - but this is unrelated to your argument
above.)

> And yes, this fact makes it somewhat harder to fix things: We/you will need
> to better reconcile the meaning ascribed to terms in regular (English)
> language use with the desire to use LO-Writer-specific definitions.

No, not that fact, but your personal preference to do it in the wrong order
(see above).

> > So:
> > * Heading is a paragraph having an outline level other than "Text Body".
> 
> No it isn't. We can set the outline level of an arbitrary style, with no
> intention of considering it to head anything in the text (Example: Perhaps I
> want certain blockquotes of particular importance to appear in the outline
> view of my document). If instead of "Outline level" you called that property
> "Heading level", then you could make your argument. But we/you have chosen
> to say "Outline", so... no, a paragraph having an outline level other than
> "Text Body" is not necessarily a Heading.

Yes it is. As I said: your personal use of the feature is fine, but until it's
much rarer than the other use, it's OK to call that feature in the program
after its most prominent use.

> > * Chapter is a part of text starting from a heading with outline level 1,
> > and up to the next heading with outline level 1.
> 
> Here my objection is somewhat weaker. That is, it's counter-intuitive to
> define chapters like this

Each time you mention intuition, you sound very strange, because each time
then, you claim something that is mostly counter-intuitive itself to *most*
users except most geeky ones. So please note that no, it's very *intuitive* to
call chapters that way - just because intuition of *most* users would match it.
The intuition is just a matter of prior experience, not something inherent -
and hence, you need to weigh how much your own intuition is representative for
the most common case.

> > * Outline is a concept of paragraphs having the associated levels, creating
> > corresponding structure.
> 
> Indeed. But that contradicts - as a typical user would see it - your claimed
> definition of a Heading paragraph.

No, it won't.

> > Trying to make it more complex, by mixing with so insanely complex matter as
> > human language is (aggravated by translations, which multiply the associated
> > meanings) is a mistake.
> 
> Unfortunately, LO is used by humans, and the UI is full of text in Human
> language, so I don't quite see how you expect to "unmix" that.

As I mentioned above: in steps, using terms that are associated with the most
prominent use case, and making sure that we don't break the intuition of users
having their experience in the *industry* (that has some established mappings).

> Anyway, what's wrong with the following definitions (for English of course)?:
> 
> * "Outline paragraph" is a paragraph having an outline level other than
> "Text Body".

No problem in itself - but inexperienced users (i.e., the majority) will least
likely recognize that as something matching their goal.

> * "Heading" is a paragraph with style "Heading", "Heading 1", "Heading 2"
> etc. Perhaps some additional specific styles (e.g. "Title").

ABSOLUTELY wrong, and MUST NEVER be used that way. Any paragraph style is not
special in any way. You seem to fail to recognize that fundamental concept. The
name of the style is intended to hint how it's expected to be used, but it
isn't a special style. It is no more special as e.g. "Заголовок по ГОСТ
21.1101:2008" that an organization might decide to use for headings, and
mandate in its internal regulations.

> * "Chapter" will be unused/undefined by LO Writer, as we don't seem to have
> facilities specific to chapters in books as opposed to Heading/Outline
> paragraphs.

We have - as I shown in the ToC dialog.

> * "Outline" is a concept of paragraphs having the associated levels,
> creating corresponding structure.

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.