Message-ID: <48E7C137.8000100@scarlet.be>
Date: Sat, 04 Oct 2008 21:17:11 +0200
From: Killian De Volder <killian.de.volder@scarlet.be>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.16 (X11/20080812)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Subject: [lojban-beginners] Re: User interfacing in Lojban..
References: <E1KmAQz-0000w5-QJ@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <48E7AD62.4010307@finagle.org>
In-Reply-To: <48E7AD62.4010307@finagle.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Errors-to: lojban-beginners-bounce@lojban.org
Precedence: bulk
Reply-to: lojban-beginners@lojban.org
Content-Length: 2135

Steve Sloan wrote:
> Mark wrote:
>> In a typical real UI there are three things a button can say:
>> 1) What the user does by pressing it ("Accept", "Dismiss")
>> 2) What the computer does when the user presses it ("Apply", "Search")
>> 3) What the user notionally communicates by pressing it ("OK")
>>
>> For 2), for instance, you can't just say "Sisku" on the button, as 
>> that (as
>> I understand it) means "Look, a search/something searches!" which 
>> makes no
>> sense in context.  Would the button read "ko sisku" ("Hey you, 
>> Search!")? 
>
> I think {sisku} would be fine, as most UI labels are already ambiguous 
> as to the actor.  For example, "Get Mail" and "Print" are actions for 
> the application to perform, but "Write" and "Reply" are actions the 
> user wants to perform.  You could add {ko}/{mi}, but that would 
> probably just make things more confusing: is {mi} the user, or the 
> application?
How about omitting the mi / ko ? Making it unspecified, doing EXACTLY 
what you want:
doing the same as what we read now in English, the short labels are 
ambiguous.

I REALLY don't get the UI discussion issue.
The complain is: it's not clear who the subject is ... aren't we trying 
to obtain that (ambiguously) ?
And if you do want to show the actor, it's usually the program who is 
acting (so ko).
>
>> 1) I have no idea how to do.  For Accept - "mi fitytu'i"?
>
> Wouldn't an "Accept"/"Decline" dialog just be phrased as a {xa} 
> question, with {go'i}/{na} buttons?  You could also make it less 
> ambiguous by phrasing as a {mo} question with buttons for the 
> appropriate action (e.g. "Save"/"Discard").
>
>> 3), at least, is fairly clear - "je'e".  In fact, I'm glad for this, 
>> as it
>> eliminates the ugliness of having to use the English "OK" (as in "All 
>> your
>> data has been lost <OK>")
>> I'm not sure if {je'e} is really any better than "OK" ...
>>
>> "All your data has been lost: [je'e] [oi] [a'onai]"
A single "ok" choice je'e would be correct: "Yes I read the message you."
But in case of a multi option je'e would be very confusing. (As Steve 
explained)
>>
>> -- Steve
>>
>>
>>
>>