|
Wednesday 26 May 2004 7:54:27 am
Great post Emil. Your points make a lot of sense in the grand scheme, and I really hope the folks at eZ systems give this thread the attention it deserves. Here are some of my thoughts.
<b>Item vs. Content Object / Location vs. Node / Parents & Children</b>
The use of <i>item</i> instead of <i>object</i> or <i>content object</i> would be a good move. The word is generic enough to apply to every object, whether it be a product, an article or an image. The same can be said of <i>location</i>. While we as developers understand that the data isn't tied to a single spot, the common user/editor still views the information within the site as having an intrinsic place within a structure or hierarchy. Replacing the use of <i>parent</i> and <i>children</i> with the appropriate location or object names follows this same pattern and would make it much easier for the common user to understand what is happening.
<b>Object Relation</b>
I agree that using both <i>object relation</i> and <i>object relation list</i> list is rather confusing. It is another instance where the same word or phrase is given two meanings (which I've brought up previously). While these two have some similarities, I think they prove confusing for new developers. But, I do not know what to use instead. I think it is important to keep the idea of relation within related objects, though not necessarily within the ORL.
<b>Placement vs. Location</b>
I would choose <i>location</i> as the better word.
<b>Post vs. Publish</b>
For the most part I agree, though I actually believe <i>post</i> is the better word for the forum templates as it is consistent with other forum packages that users may encounter.
<b>Cancel vs. Discard / Remove vs. Delete</b>
I agree, <i>cancel</i> is the better word and the usage pattern Emil provided for <i>remove</i> and <i>delete</i> make sense.
<b>Tony's idea</b>
While I am a big fan of flexibility I think providing the ability to modify the terminology would lead to additional confusion. The biggest problem right now is the fact that the terminology doesn't always make sense. Adding another layer would only multiply the possible confusion, especially in the future. The developers and users would be speaking two different languages when referring to the same information or item. Down the road, if a project is passed on to a new developer, they may very well grow frustrated when searching for a term on the eZ publish site, not knowing that the search phrase isn't the standard terminology. Add to that, searches on these forums would become less effective over time as that same standard terminology might be used less in posts. I believe that we would be better off in the long run, were we to keep with a single set of modified terms. Alex
Alex
[ bald_technologist on the IRC channel (irc.freenode.net): #eZpublish ]
<i>When in doubt, clear the cache.</i>
|
