From rob@twcny.rr.com Mon Apr 23 17:15:19 2001 Return-Path: X-Sender: rob@twcny.rr.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-7_1_2); 24 Apr 2001 00:15:18 -0000 Received: (qmail 23159 invoked from network); 24 Apr 2001 00:15:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (10.1.10.142) by m8.onelist.org with QMQP; 24 Apr 2001 00:15:16 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com) (24.92.226.121) by mta3 with SMTP; 24 Apr 2001 00:15:15 -0000 Received: from mail1.twcny.rr.com (mail1-0 [24.92.226.74]) by mailout2-0.nyroc.rr.com (8.11.2/RoadRunner 1.03) with ESMTP id f3O0D3S06431 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:13:03 -0400 (EDT) Received: from riff ([24.95.175.122]) by mail1.twcny.rr.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-59787U250000L250000S0V35) with ESMTP id com for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:13:03 -0400 Received: from rob by riff with local (Exim 3.22 #1 (Debian)) id 14rqRf-0000Nt-00 for ; Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:12:43 -0400 Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 20:12:43 -0400 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] More interface words Message-ID: <20010423201243.B1418@twcny.rr.com> Reply-To: rob@twcny.rr.com References: <20010423142738.A514@twcny.rr.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.17i In-Reply-To: ; from xod@sixgirls.org on Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 06:55:52PM -0400 X-Is-It-Not-Nifty: www.sluggy.com From: Rob Speer On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 06:55:52PM -0400, Value Yourself wrote: > On Mon, 23 Apr 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 23, 2001 at 01:30:38AM -0400, Value Yourself wrote: > > > On Sun, 22 Apr 2001, Rob Speer wrote: > > > > > > > Okay, in what I've done now I've got a few more words. > > > > > > > > dialog box: reirdatni canko > > > > > > Why not reica'o? (Isn't the datni part implied, or redundant?) > > > > Possibly. I want some sort of distinction between "question box" (a yes/no or > > OK/Cancel kind of thing) and "dialog box". > > I see what you mean. skicu canko? (explainer-box) And that sounds like a message box with no input at all. The idea I'm trying to convey is that a dialog box asks for various kinds of information. > > > > animation: mu'uxra > > > skina? > > > > That could work for an MPEG or AVI or something, but the context in which I'm > > using it here is for a dumb applet which shows a three-frame animation of a > > fish. Pretty lousy 'cinema' if you want to call it that. :) > > > Still, I would think of it of a rufsu skina more than a muvdu pixra, which > sounds more like an icon that moves around the screen. skina has a place for the 'plot'. The plot of the fish would at best be zi'o. Hmm. The gismu list suggests a term for animation ("selxraci'a skina") which involves both pixra and skina, but is more intended to mean a cartoon, seems to involve the actual process of displaying it on a screen, and doesn't make a whole lot of sense. > > What I've been doing is: > > - I use the voice of the user when the text corresponds to a control that the > > user selects > > ("ko benji le tcika le datnysro") > > - I use the voice of the computer when the text is just information > > ("ledo canko jitro na mapti la gnom.") > > - I avoid pronouns (that would be the narrator, I guess) when I'm not sure. > > I hope this isn't more confusing than using a single voice everywhere. The interaction between the human and the computer can be thought of as a conversation. Choosing a single voice would involve either you or the computer metaphorically putting words in the other's mouth. -- Rob Speer