[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Release notes

On 30 March 2013 17:10, Justin B Rye <justin.byam.rye@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel Hartwig wrote:
>> Right, and I do not see how ‘visual mode’ is misleading?
> I've explained it already, but the reason it's not obvious to you is
> that you're not some

> slow-witted, ignorant newbie,

> and therefore don't
> have much practice looking at documentation from the appropriate
> angle.

Ok, I was not aware that the release notes were attempting to cater to
such a special interest group.

> You're using the term "visual mode" to distinguish that UI
> from another one, which is therefore... what, "olfactory mode"?  Are
> users not expected to read "Accept this solution? [Y/n/q/?]" using
> their eyes?

That would be the command line interface, which is more verbal than
visual in nature.

> The term "visual mode" is a fossil from the days when vi was an
> innovatively friendly piece of interface design.
>> By the way,
>> current aptitude manual prefers the term ‘visual interface’, ‘mode’ is
>> used only once and I have just changed that.
> So even if our policy is "stick to the canonical label", we ought to
> change it.

No, this was just a note.  The two terms are similar enough with the
key word being visual.  Both documents have used their respective
terms for some time, so no pressing reason to change.

> Alternatively, if you still think "visual" is a valid
> description as well as just an arbitrary label,

I do not think it is an arbitrary label.

> why shouldn't we use
> other valid descriptions as well?

Consistency with the aptitude manual.  If you do not care for that,
then do what you like.  I don't see any reason to change it in
aptitude, but then I am not in the habit of catering to the
aforementioned special interest group.


Reply to: