User talk:Grimholtz: Difference between revisions

From MozillaZine Knowledge Base
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Grimholtz, it isn't necessary to link each occurrence of a word/phrase in an article. In fact it usually looks better when you don't do so. IMO, linking the first occurrence of a word in an article (or in a section - for long sections) is enough. E.g:


''Good:'' [[Killing dinosaurs]] is bad. Do not ever think of killing dinosaurs.<br/>
''Bad:'' [[Killing dinosaurs]] is bad. Do not ever think of [[killing dinosaurs]].
[[User:Asqueella|asqueella]]
As you wish.
--grimholtz
Dear grimholtz. Thank you very much for your contributin for PassWordMaker to the Keyboard shortcut registry for extension authors (Firefox). It is much appreciated and more times over because you are the first extension author who has chosen to add their product.
I do hope you will continue to contribute and maintain your entries.
However, I regret that I must carp about three points.
1) You have gone through systematically changing all the ellipses ("...") to question marks ("?"). I am sure that in your opinion, that indicates that a dialogue will result. However, wherever they occur on the Firefox menus, the description entries equivalent to such shortcuts are terminated by "..." to indicate "more will follow" rather than a single action when the item is clicked. That is how most users will see and understand such menu items and thus the description of their action. That is the way Firefox represents them and it was not a personal preference or opinion which led me to use them where I have. Moreover, the use of a "?" instead would, actually indicate, to many users, that there was some question as to whether that was the correct description or not. As soon as I saw the first changes, I thought perhaps you were querying the accuracy of the descriptions. Given the current overloading of so many of these shortcuts, combined with the possibilites introduced by KeyConfig, there may well be doubt about the eventual effect of any of these shortcuts but that is what the registry is about and the description of the action has to simply say what it is intended to do in that particular case. Sometimes it simply gives a general description without ellipses where they might be considered. Where I have used ellipses in the name of the shortcut, it is because the name as used internally is actually that when seen by KeyConfig.
Therefore, I am about to change all your "?"'s back to "...". I regret doing this, mostly because I am what you probably would consider to be rather (very?) old, I have been working all night on Mozilla matters, partly for myself but mainly on fora and I had intended to install and test a trial extension version for its author and then go to sleep. Now all that must be postponed while I sort out how to restore things without losing your greatly valued entries. Easy when not bleary eyed and exhausted. I shall, of course, not get to collect my medicine from the doctor later this afternoon. It would have been so good of you to discuss the matter before your well intentioned action. If you knew how much work it had taken me to single handedly assemble, individually check virtually all those entries, (using a fresh profile each time) and then assemble the table, I'm sure you would have done so.
2) "`" is known in every version of English which I have encountered as an "opening single quote" or "single opening quote". I have never heard it called a "tick" and that term normally refers to something like a "V", with one side half cut off, which is used to indicate that something is correct. When rushed, some dash off an oblique line to indicate a tick but that is not how it is printed and it does not normally appear on a keyboard. I shall try to fit some short description into the space available but better none than one which is not widely understood as in "Standard English".
3) I am unsure about your use of a link back to your Homepage.
a) This registry is not intended first and foremost for end-users. It is for authors. I can see that you might argue that a link would perhaps be useful for discussion to avoid shortcut clashes. Perhaps in that case the link should be to the extension author on MKB?
b) Whereas end-users might well find a use for the registry when, for instance, resolving shortcut conflicts, they already have a wealth of references elsewhere should they wish to obtain more detail in particular case. Cross linking is valuable but I'm not sure about linking outside MKB in each case like this.
c) Homepage links tend to change. I would think it would be better to have an MKB entry for each extension in MKB. Each would stand on its own and could be referenced from such places as this. Each might have one, unique MKB link to the current homepage. Then at least one would not risk ending up with lots of pages doing things like this registry, and each spattered with lots of its own dead or useless links. I don't know what MKB policy is over this but I would quite expect the idea to be encouraged rather than discouraged.
As I say, I'm unsure. Would you think about it, consider the possibility of a link to your MKB user page or to a unique PasswordMaker MKB page instead of the direct outward link?
Now I have to do my fixes. I am tired.
Again, thank you very much for your contribution. It may not sound like it, but I'm glad you took the trouble.
Best regards, RDL

Latest revision as of 06:12, 24 January 2008