Topics

CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


Richard Bartholomew
 

Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but if the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way. In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area which I
thought wasn't relevant to me. A personal failing I admit but we all have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
How about user input schemes or something like that?
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Bartholomew" <rlbart53@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but if the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way. In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area which I
thought wasn't relevant to me. A personal failing I admit but we all have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew





Ian Westerland
 

Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition. Just a thought.


Ian Westerland

On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
How about user input schemes or something like that?
Brian
bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew" <rlbart53@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION

Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but if the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way.  In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area which I
thought wasn't relevant to me.  A personal failing I admit but we all have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew






Devin Prater
 

I would agree with just "commands", or "input commands."
Devin Pratersent from Gmail.


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:54 AM Ian Westerland <iwesterl@...> wrote:


Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.


Ian Westerland





On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
> Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
> How about user input schemes or something like that?
> Brian
>
> bglists@...
> Sent via blueyonder.
> Please address personal E-mail to:-
> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name field.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew"
> <rlbart53@...>
> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
> Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
>> understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but
>> if the
>> top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
>> failed in some way.  In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
>> and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area
>> which I
>> thought wasn't relevant to me.  A personal failing I admit but we all
>> have
>> demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
>> diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!
>>
>> I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of
>> the
>> people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Richard Bartholomew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>




Ian Westerland
 

Devin, I'd agree with that too. As long as the terminology is clear, it's just a case of making the choice.

Ian

On 2/16/2019 11:00 PM, Devin Prater wrote:
I would agree with just "commands", or "input commands."
Devin Pratersent from Gmail.
On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:54 AM Ian Westerland <iwesterl@... <mailto:iwesterl@...>> wrote:
Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.
Ian Westerland
On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
> Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
> How about user input schemes or something like that?
> Brian
>
> bglists@... <mailto:bglists@...>
> Sent via blueyonder.
> Please address personal E-mail to:-
> briang1@... <mailto:briang1@...>,
putting 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name field.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew"
> <rlbart53@... <mailto:rlbart53@...>>
> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io <mailto:nvda@nvda.groups.io>>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
> Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is
excellent and
>> understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per
se but
>> if the
>> top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user,
it has
>> failed in some way.  In this case, the word gesture implies
touch screens
>> and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area
>> which I
>> thought wasn't relevant to me.  A personal failing I admit but
we all
>> have
>> demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are
unnecessary
>> diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!
>>
>> I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please
some of
>> the
>> people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Richard Bartholomew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>


Ângelo Abrantes
 

Here, in Portugal, we are using some think like "define commands", "Definir comandos".


Às 12:00 de 16-02-2019, Devin Prater escreveu:
I would agree with just "commands", or "input commands."
Devin Pratersent from Gmail.


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:54 AM Ian Westerland <iwesterl@...> wrote:


Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.


Ian Westerland





On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
> Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
> How about user input schemes or something like that?
> Brian
>
> bglists@...
> Sent via blueyonder.
> Please address personal E-mail to:-
> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name field.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew"
> <rlbart53@...>
> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
> Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
>> understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but
>> if the
>> top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
>> failed in some way.  In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
>> and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area
>> which I
>> thought wasn't relevant to me.  A personal failing I admit but we all
>> have
>> demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
>> diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!
>>
>> I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of
>> the
>> people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Richard Bartholomew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Cordiais Cumprimentos
Ângelo Abrantes, Equipa <Portuguesa do NVDA

Sem vírus. www.avast.com


Felix G.
 

Hi,
I also like the term "input commands." Or maybe "user actions."
Best,
Felix

Am Sa., 16. Feb. 2019 um 13:10 Uhr schrieb Ângelo Abrantes <ampa4374@...>:

Here, in Portugal, we are using some think like "define commands", "Definir comandos".


Às 12:00 de 16-02-2019, Devin Prater escreveu:
I would agree with just "commands", or "input commands."
Devin Pratersent from Gmail.


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 5:54 AM Ian Westerland <iwesterl@...> wrote:


Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.


Ian Westerland





On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
> Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
> How about user input schemes or something like that?
> Brian
>
> bglists@...
> Sent via blueyonder.
> Please address personal E-mail to:-
> briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
> in the display name field.
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew"
> <rlbart53@...>
> To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
> Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION
>
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
>> understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but
>> if the
>> top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
>> failed in some way.  In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
>> and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area
>> which I
>> thought wasn't relevant to me.  A personal failing I admit but we all
>> have
>> demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
>> diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!
>>
>> I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of
>> the
>> people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!
>>
>> Good luck!
>>
>> Richard Bartholomew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Cordiais Cumprimentos
Ângelo Abrantes, Equipa <Portuguesa do NVDA

Sem vírus. www.avast.com


 

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 06:54 AM, Ian Westerland wrote:
Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition. Just a thought.
Ian,

        Just because I have been in this situation more than once before, I have to tell you that this idea will either not work at all or not work well.

        People do not tend to read documentation cover to cover nor in order, and that actually makes perfect sense.  We seek out sections either via the index, table of contents, or searching that appear to relate directly to the issue we're trying to solve or the thing we're trying to learn about.

         Gesture is an utterly unclear and inappropriate term for a command.  Others have stated exactly why, especially for your typical reader of English.  If one has to explain the basic concept of command then something's very, very wrong with the terminology being used and you can be sure that many people will miss the explanation for the reason I noted above.

          The ability to directly apprehend meaning, with the bare minimum of additional explanation, is critical in technical documentation.  Mind you, there are obviously times when "the bare minimum" will be far from bare or minimal, but this isn't one of those.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


Rui Fontes
 

That explains why I have stopped to use profissional translators...
We, users, do not need a literal translation, but a translation that can explain, in everyday words, what the author means...

Because of that, in portuguese we have translated the menu "Input gestures" to "Define commands", because, in end of day, is what you do in that dialog... You are defining what command, meaning keyboard keystroke, Braille display keystroke or a touch gesture, will perform the action...

I, in all my translations use this approach, in spite of, some times, I need to rewrite all the manual for a device...

Best regards,

Rui Fontes
NVDA portuguese team
Tiflotecnia, Lda...

Às 15:07 de 16/02/2019, Brian Vogel escreveu:

On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 06:54 AM, Ian Westerland wrote:
Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means
in context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual
definition. Just a thought.
Ian,
        Just because I have been in this situation more than once before, I have to tell you that this idea will either not work at all or not work well.
        People do not tend to read documentation cover to cover nor in order, and that actually makes perfect sense.  We seek out sections either via the index, table of contents, or searching that appear to relate directly to the issue we're trying to solve or the thing we're trying to learn about.
         Gesture is an utterly unclear and inappropriate term for a command.  Others have stated exactly why, especially for your typical reader of English.  If one has to explain the basic concept of command then something's very, very wrong with the terminology being used and you can be sure that many people will miss the explanation for the reason I noted above.
          The ability to directly apprehend meaning, with the bare minimum of additional explanation, is critical in technical documentation.  Mind you, there are obviously times when "the bare minimum" will be far from bare or minimal, but this isn't one of those.
--
Brian *-*Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763
*/A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep./*
          ~ Saul Bellow, /To Jerusalem and Back/


 

Rui,

         No criticism of you, but of the "professional" translators you used:  Attempts to do "literal translation" are about as unprofessional as you can get.

         The job of a professional translator, which you are showing yourself to be in this context, is to bring the concept, in as much fullness as possible, across languages.  That often involved very intentional choices to dump literal, word by word or even phrase by phrase translation.  The object is to convey shared understanding, and you're trying to do that admirably.

          Then again, to give professional translators who may be having difficulty here some credit, they're not tech geeks, either.  How would someone who has no idea of what "input gestures" is supposed to convey be able to accurately translate same conceptually?   In order to translate well you have to have some idea of the meaning, not just the written structure, of what it is you're translating.

--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


Rui Fontes
 

Yes, if I can find a professional translator specialized in assistive technology the result should be good, but at least in Portugal we do not have that...

Rui


Às 15:57 de 16/02/2019, Brian Vogel escreveu:

Rui,
         No criticism of you, but of the "professional" translators you used:  Attempts to do "literal translation" are about as unprofessional as you can get.
         The job of a professional translator, which you are showing yourself to be in this context, is to bring the concept, in as much fullness as possible, across languages.  That often involved very intentional choices to dump literal, word by word or even phrase by phrase translation.  The object is to convey shared understanding, and you're trying to do that admirably.
          Then again, to give professional translators who may be having difficulty here some credit, they're not tech geeks, either.  How would someone who has no idea of what "input gestures" is supposed to convey be able to accurately translate same conceptually?   In order to translate well you have to have some idea of the meaning, not just the written structure, of what it is you're translating.
--
Brian *-*Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763
*/A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep./*
          ~ Saul Bellow, /To Jerusalem and Back/


 

Rui,

          What bothers me here, and it is not about you, but about those translators, is that it should be part and parcel of their jobs to obtain the necessary understanding about what it is that's being translated before they translate it.

           Taking the time to consult with the individual or entity requesting the translation at any point when it becomes clear that the material being translated is not adequately understood at a level necessary to do accurate translation is part and parcel of the job.

            I actually know of two here in the US who are screen reader users, but I don't think either "does" Portugese, though I could check if you'd like and put you in contact if desired.

--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

I think the issue though is when you see the word Gesture, you may not understand it as anything but a physical motion, ie making a rude sign or whatever, Its not universally known by this name for interaction with anything but touch sscreens based on my unscientific study of half a dozen blind computer users!

A headinglike keyboard, mouse and touch gestures for NVDA might explain it better.
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ian Westerland" <iwesterl@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION




Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.


Ian Westerland





On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
How about user input schemes or something like that?
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew" <rlbart53@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but if the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way. In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area which I
thought wasn't relevant to me. A personal failing I admit but we all have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew









Brian's Mail list account <bglists@...>
 

Yes this is exactly why programmers should not write manuals. They tend to adopt words and phrases like Carat and Gesture as shorthand but nobody out in the world has the slightest idea of what they mean.

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Vogel" <@britechguy>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 06:54 AM, Ian Westerland wrote:


Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition. Just
a thought.
Ian,

Just because I have been in this situation more than once before, I have to tell you that this idea will either not work at all or not work well.

People do not tend to read documentation cover to cover nor in order, and that actually makes perfect sense. We seek out sections either via the index, table of contents, or searching that appear to relate directly to the issue we're trying to solve or the thing we're trying to learn about.

Gesture is an utterly unclear and inappropriate term for a command. Others have stated exactly why, especially for your typical reader of English. If one has to explain the basic concept of command then something's very, very wrong with the terminology being used and you can be sure that many people will miss the explanation for the reason I noted above.

The ability to directly apprehend meaning, with the bare minimum of additional explanation, is critical in technical documentation. Mind you, there are obviously times when "the bare minimum" will be far from bare or minimal, but this isn't one of those.

--

Brian *-* Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763

*A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.*

~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back


 

Actually, I always found it too strange that this option was called "gestures", simply because, for me,  it means what it would mean out of the computer/programming world.
That is, a gesture is a gesture, isn't it? So I'm thinking, well here we should have the touch commands, why are the keyboard ones here as well?
And I'm into geeky stuff, sometimes dare myself programming some small things. I hope I'm not the only one geek with this understanding of things!

Cheers,
Marcio
Follow me on Twitter

Em 17/02/2019 06:37, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io escreveu:

I think the issue though is when you see the word Gesture, you may not understand it as anything but a physical motion, ie making a rude sign or whatever, Its not universally known by this name for interaction with anything but touch sscreens based on my unscientific  study of half a dozen blind computer users!

A headinglike  keyboard, mouse and touch gestures for NVDA might explain it better.
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian Westerland" <iwesterl@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 11:54 AM
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION




Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.


Ian Westerland





On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
How about user input schemes or something like that?
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew" <rlbart53@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but if the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way. In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area which I
thought wasn't relevant to me. A personal failing I admit but we all have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew




















Rui Fontes
 

Hi Brian!

You wrote:
          What bothers me here, and it is not about you, but about those translators, is that it should be part and parcel of their jobs to obtain the necessary understanding about what it is that's being translated before they translate it.
Yah, that should be true to all professionals...



You wrote:
            I actually know of two here in the US who are screen reader users, but I don't think either "does" Portugese, though I could check if you'd like and put you in contact if desired.
It is not needed, thanks!

Rui Fontes


 

Hi,
To me, saying that programmers should not write manuals robs them of a valuable educational opportunity to communicate (I am a programmer and do write documentation).
Cheers,
Joseph

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io
Sent: Sunday, February 17, 2019 1:40 AM
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION

Yes this is exactly why programmers should not write manuals. They tend to adopt words and phrases like Carat and Gesture as shorthand but nobody out in the world has the slightest idea of what they mean.

Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian Vogel" <@britechguy>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 3:07 PM
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


On Sat, Feb 16, 2019 at 06:54 AM, Ian Westerland wrote:


Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in
context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition. Just
a thought.
Ian,

Just because I have been in this situation more than once before, I have to
tell you that this idea will either not work at all or not work well.

People do not tend to read documentation cover to cover nor in order, and
that actually makes perfect sense. We seek out sections either via the
index, table of contents, or searching that appear to relate directly to the
issue we're trying to solve or the thing we're trying to learn about.

Gesture is an utterly unclear and inappropriate term for a command. Others
have stated exactly why, especially for your typical reader of English. If
one has to explain the basic concept of command then something's very, very
wrong with the terminology being used and you can be sure that many people
will miss the explanation for the reason I noted above.

The ability to directly apprehend meaning, with the bare minimum of
additional explanation, is critical in technical documentation. Mind you,
there are obviously times when "the bare minimum" will be far from bare or
minimal, but this isn't one of those.

--

Brian *-* Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763

*A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for
illusion is deep.*

~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back


 

On Sun, Feb 17, 2019 at 12:52 PM, Joseph Lee wrote:
To me, saying that programmers should not write manuals robs them of a valuable educational opportunity to communicate (I am a programmer and do write documentation).
And, to me, having been a programmer and having written documentation (that most people seem to like), I'd say that if you have no real ability to write to begin with you should not be writing documentation.  Or if you (any you, not you, Joseph) are writing it you had better be ready to subject it to editorial review by someone known to be skilled in the area.

Most programmers are horrific writers and, even worse, consider documentation to be useless grunt work.  And I'll never change that opinion based on decades of direct experience.

It's not that there are not exceptions, but that's what they are:  exceptions.
 
--

Brian - Windows 10 Home, 64-Bit, Version 1809, Build 17763  

A great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.

          ~ Saul Bellow, To Jerusalem and Back

 

 


Steve Nutt
 

That's even worse. <Smile>. What is a scheme?

I think we need to separate off the input methods. Keyboard, Touch
Gestures, etc.

All the best

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Brian's Mail
list account via Groups.Io
Sent: 16 February 2019 11:52
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION

Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
How about user input schemes or something like that?
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Bartholomew" <rlbart53@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but if
the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way. In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area which
I
thought wasn't relevant to me. A personal failing I admit but we all have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew






Steve Nutt
 

But that means you have to go somewhere to look up what NVDA terms a gesture? No, I think it needs rethinking a bit.

All the best

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: nvda@nvda.groups.io <nvda@nvda.groups.io> On Behalf Of Ian Westerland
Sent: 16 February 2019 11:55
To: nvda@nvda.groups.io
Subject: Re: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION



Another way around the issue might be to define what the word means in context so "gesture" could be used within the contextual definition.
Just a thought.


Ian Westerland





On 2/16/2019 10:51 PM, Brian's Mail list account via Groups.Io wrote:
Yes we need a whole new word or phrase.
How about user input schemes or something like that?
Brian

bglists@...
Sent via blueyonder.
Please address personal E-mail to:-
briang1@..., putting 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name field.
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Bartholomew"
<rlbart53@...>
To: <nvda@nvda.groups.io>
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2019 10:16 AM
Subject: [nvda] CLARITY OF TERMINOLOGY AND DOCUMENTATION


Hi,

The underlying explanation of what input gestures are is excellent and
understandable; however, for me, the issue isn't semantics per se but
if the
top-level description isn't immediately obvious to the end-user, it has
failed in some way. In this case, the word gesture implies touch screens
and, so, discouraged me from finding the time to delve into an area
which I
thought wasn't relevant to me. A personal failing I admit but we all
have
demands upon our time so if we can weed out what we think are unnecessary
diversions, it's often the pragmatic way to go!

I accept that this whole area is a minefield as you can please some of
the
people, some of the time, etc, etc, etc!

Good luck!

Richard Bartholomew