Return-path: X-Spam-Personal-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.2.1 (2007-05-02) on chain.digitalkingdom.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.2.1 Envelope-to: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Delivery-date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:42:05 -0700 Received: from chain.digitalkingdom.org ([64.81.66.169]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IWk55-0005vT-Ap; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:58 -0700 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list jbovlaste); Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:26 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IWk4c-0005vN-4E for jbovlaste-real@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:26 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1IWk4b-0005vG-Oe for jbovlaste@lojban.org; Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:25 -0700 Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 19:41:25 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: jbovlaste@lojban.org Subject: [jbovlaste] Re: Process for adding new words Message-ID: <20070916024125.GS27757@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: jbovlaste@lojban.org References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.16 (2007-06-11) X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: jbovlaste-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: jbovlaste@lojban.org X-list: jbovlaste Content-Length: 1825 Lines: 44 On Tue, May 15, 2007 at 06:09:24PM -0500, Adam D. Lopresto wrote: > First a general note about the language of all the forms. They > seem to be written to instill as much anxiety as possible. "Are > you sure you really, honestly, and truly know what you're doing? > Really? Ok, then hit the button five times, and maybe it'll > work." Basically, everything makes it sound error prone, "well, > it looks like that word got added correctly. I think." Not > confidence instilling. I believe I've fixed that; if you disagree, let me know. > So first I put the word into the box, and click the "Add the word" button. > It warns me about how horrible a thing it is to contribute, I think I've fixed that too, but you may disagree. Again, let me know. > Here's how I'd much rather see things go. "Adding" {kafxu'i} > takes me straight to the "add a definition" page. No need to add > the word until it's got a definition. After I fill out the form, > it checks each of the gloss words and keywords. Then give me a > list. "These gloss words exist. Your new definition will link to > them. These words don't exist yet; they will be created. If any > of that isn't what you want, edit your definition". Then I click > "ok" once, and it goes away to add all the records at once. It > lets me know (really!) whether everything worked, and tells me > "Cool, added". While it's at it, it should vote for anything it > needs to. If there are any problems, let me know, but don't > bother me about it unless you have to. Done. No, seriously. It's done. And I'm very proud of myself, so go try it, everyone! -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/