> > Template: lwat/uselisgroup > > Type: boolean > > Default: true > > _Description: Should lwat use lisGroups? > > Is this question going to be obvious for users of the package? I have no > idea what it means. I have no idea either..:-) Maybe the maintainer can explain us....which would actually mean adding a long description..:) > > > Template: lwat/groupprefix > > Type: string > > Default: ou=Group > > _Description: Prefix for groups on the LDAP server: > > Please enter the prefix under which the groups information is > > stored. Only the last part is needed. > > For all of these questions I don't understand what "the last part" > refers to, do you know? Ah, crap. Nicolas made a remark about this. This actually means that one can omit the DN part and just mention the "ou=" sequence. At least, the is my understanding. > > > Template: lwat/minPwNumber > > Type: string > > Default: 1 > > _Description: Minimum number of digits (0-9) in passwords: > > I'm not sure that the (0-9) is entirely clear. Would (characters 0-9) be > clear, or does that just add an extra word that could confuse? Yep, good idea. > Also, a more general question about the project. Is the aim to just > rewrite the templates for spelling and grammar, or should we be looking > at usability as well, and suggest additions and corrections where we > feel that the templates are lacking? In my point of view, this is certainly about both. Of course, we will face situations where none of us has the experience (see "lisGroups" above). There, we'll need to ask maintainers for more input, but in such case, we might expect that an usability issue exists..:) Avoiding any kind of jargon is, for instance, something we really should keep in mind. Jargon is likely to prevent the accessibility of technology.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature