View Issue Details
| ID | Project | Category | View Status | Date Submitted | Last Update |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0013709 | Scribus | User Interface | public | 2016-02-05 08:21 | 2022-10-24 14:29 |
| Reporter | christoph_s | Assigned To | cbradney | ||
| Priority | normal | Severity | minor | Reproducibility | N/A |
| Status | assigned | Resolution | open | ||
| Product Version | 1.5.1svn | ||||
| Target Version | 1.6 milestone | ||||
| Summary | 0013709: Replace all UI and tooltip occurences of "Weld" with "Couple" | ||||
| Description | As per an IRC discussion last November, I think we agreed to replace the unclear "weld" with the more succinct "couple". | ||||
| Tags | No tags attached. | ||||
| Patch | No | ||||
|
|
Then we need to rename mantisbt tickets that refer to the Welding as well as listed in 0012496 |
|
|
Why? |
|
|
Christoph, ...because we're planning on changing the word 'Weld' to 'Couple' and those tickets don't reflect the change in terminology? It would help limit confusion for anyone wanting to file 'Couple' tickets that already exist under the obsolete 'Weld', right? |
|
|
Relations would remain the same, wouldn't they? |
|
|
libreoffice (and probably all offices) are using "anchor" for something very similar... if we don't see a risk to get a confusion with the "real" anchoring that might in the future be implemented in scribus, i would prefer "weld" to be replaced by "anchor". (imo "weld" is really bad... but "couple" is not better enough to justify a urgent change. so, if you don't like "anchor" i'd prefer to keep the status quo until somebody brings THE right solution. i had a look at the synonyms for "weld" (http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/weld), the best one seems to be "link"... but we can't use it here because it will conflict with the http links one can define. another interesting synonyms list is the one for pin: http://www.thesaurus.com/browse/pin and yes (to cezary's excuse), weld is theoretically a good term for the feature... but it sounds so weird...) (and, yes2, the change has to happen before 1.6!) |
|
|
Agree, couple is not the best. Anchor is ok for me. I don't think we've used connect elsewhere. |
|
|
+1 for "anchor" especially if it is uniform with other FOSS models |
|
|
ale, where does LO use "Anchor" for "something very similar"? In LO, "Anchor" is being used to determine the position of an item on the page. Items can be anchored to a page, a paragraph, a character, or be anchored as a character in a text. That's not "very similar" to but completely different from the feature currently called "Weld". "Weld" allows for combining two or more items without grouping them, so they can be edited separately by selecting them. If the "Weld" feature was working properly, it might be possible to use it as something resembling the "Anchor" feature, but it doesn't and probably shouldn't. The best we can hope for is that changing the weld point changes the base point of the "coupled" (ahem) items. A real "Anchor" feature would be a text frame feature (Insert > Anchor), whereas "Welding" is rightfully located in the "Item" menu. Actually, it's already there, albeit not really working at the moment: Insert > Mark > Anchor Mark. The obvious alternative would be "combine", but unfortunately this term is already in use for vector effects, both in Inkscape and Scribus (as well as other vector programmes). Hence my suggestion to use "couple", because that's what "Welding" actually does -- coupling two or more items without grouping them. They'll only move together. |
|
|
What's the verdict ? |
|
|
My verdict stands. I challenge everyone else to come up with something better that really reflects the current feature. |
|
|
welding is anchoring an item to another item. but one can i do against a verdict? |
|
|
ale, >>welding is anchoring an item to another item. That's just unproductive sophistry. And, no, it is not. If you anchor a boat or a ship, you attach it to the bottom of the sea or a lake, i.e., a bigger and probably static unit, but you can't anchor the bottom of the sea/lake to the boat. Anchoring requires an unequal relationship between two items, whereas the current "Weld" feature treats both items as equal. You also didn't reply to any of my arguments. Instead, you're playing the victimisation game: "but one can i do against a verdict?" Who asked for a verdict? Hint: It wasn't me! |
|
|
concerning your question: you know where LO uses anchors in a similar context. you're explaining it above. (spoiler: for linking the position of an item relatively to an anchor defined in a different item.) i'm sure that most people will understand it correctly. sorry, for the irony. |
|
|
First of all, neither pages, nor paragraphs, nor characters are items. Second, the current "Weld" feature doesn't "link[] the position of an item relatively to an anchor defined in a different item." It combines two items without grouping them. There is no "in" and no "anchor" as it currently stands. A fundamental property of an anchored item is that it can't be moved freely. Its movements depend on the movement of the anchor itself (page, paragraph, character). With the current "Weld" feature, both items can be moved, and the other item will follow. Again, totally different. Maybe your interpretation was Cezary's original idea, but it's just not there. |
|
|
the idea of welding *is* that one items follows the other in an "intelligent" way. in some cases they will be anchored to each other indeed. but in most cases not. what you are describing is basically grouping. |
|
|
>>the idea of welding *is* that one items follows the other in an "intelligent" way. What's the reality, as opposed to the idea? >>in some cases they will be anchored to each other indeed. but in most cases not. Please clarify. Especially "most cases". Please list those cases and how it actually works. >>what you are describing is basically grouping. No, it is not. |
|
|
ale, you also ignored my argument that there is a separate feature called "Anchor Mark". How do you reconcile this with your choice of wording? |
|
|
christoph, you're tiresome. you're just trying very hard to find arguments where none are needed. i prefer anchor, i don't feel the need to defend that preference, i don't like couple and, if no agreement is found, i would prefer if scribus would stick to weld until the right name is found. this is what i wrote in my the first comment. i don't have much more to say. you don't like anchor? fine to me. your mind is made up and i don't have the feeling that discussing the topic with you, will lead to anything useful. |
|
|
I'm not married to "couple", but "anchor" seems to be absolutely wrong and misleading to me. If we insist on using maritime metaphors, what about "tow"? |
|
|
will this make it in to 1.5.2 or do we bump to 1.5.3 ? |
|
|
That's not a feature question. It can be changed within a few minutes. The real problem is that we need something better than "weld" (which is wrong because of the connotations). "Anchor" is even wronger (because of the connotations and its equivalents in other programmes). So, if we could have an IRC discussion and a subsequent Team vote, the issue could be settled quickly. |
|
|
How about "group" similar as that term is used in inkscape? |
| Date Modified | Username | Field | Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2016-02-05 08:21 | christoph_s | New Issue | |
| 2016-02-05 08:21 | christoph_s | Status | new => assigned |
| 2016-02-05 08:21 | christoph_s | Assigned To | => cbradney |
| 2016-02-05 17:54 | Kunda | Note Added: 0038554 | |
| 2016-02-06 09:36 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0038555 | |
| 2016-02-08 17:05 | Kunda | Note Added: 0038562 | |
| 2016-02-09 09:27 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0038580 | |
| 2016-02-09 10:59 | ale | Note Added: 0038581 | |
| 2016-02-09 11:00 | ale | Note Edited: 0038581 | |
| 2016-02-09 12:19 | cbradney | Note Added: 0038582 | |
| 2016-02-09 12:50 | Kunda | Note Added: 0038583 | |
| 2016-02-10 07:03 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0038608 | |
| 2016-03-11 13:58 | Kunda | Note Added: 0039128 | |
| 2016-03-15 07:36 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0039169 | |
| 2016-03-15 10:49 | ale | Note Added: 0039171 | |
| 2016-03-16 07:54 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0039211 | |
| 2016-03-16 15:51 | ale | Note Added: 0039214 | |
| 2016-03-17 06:40 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0039218 | |
| 2016-03-17 08:03 | ale | Note Added: 0039219 | |
| 2016-03-17 08:25 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0039220 | |
| 2016-03-17 08:27 | christoph_s | Note Edited: 0039220 | |
| 2016-03-17 08:27 | christoph_s | Note Edited: 0039220 | |
| 2016-03-17 08:29 | christoph_s | Note Edited: 0039220 | |
| 2016-03-17 08:33 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0039221 | |
| 2016-03-17 15:37 | ale | Note Added: 0039223 | |
| 2016-03-18 07:46 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0039226 | |
| 2016-04-15 04:15 | Kunda | Note Added: 0040196 | |
| 2016-04-15 06:49 | christoph_s | Note Added: 0040198 | |
| 2016-05-01 14:24 | cbradney | Target Version | 1.5.2 => 1.5.3 |
| 2016-12-08 21:25 | Kunda | Target Version | 1.5.3 => 1.6 milestone |
| 2022-10-24 14:29 | silverwoodchuck47 | Note Added: 0049790 |
