Here is one possibility for a chat.
I have installed Shoutbox on my company site.

jensclas
jorgebarrero
daddystu

are members of a special group that has access only to that module....

if you login with the password qaqa
then see how we go from there....


altiacentral

Please check you can log in first, then we can get back here and try to setup a chat..

Here is something that I think jen would be good with, but lemme know

Considering the labels for some settings etc.

What are normally labels using imperative verb forms, (use, activate, turn etc..) sometimes are full sentences, too verbose.

I suggest that these be picked out and
1.choose a label more in line with the majority of terms (possibly defining new terms as needed)

2.make the explanation part of a help text....

Example::
SYSTEM > PREFERENCES >
GENERAL SETTINGS

Select groups that are allowed to access while the site is turned off.

Change to something like...
Superaccess Groups
(These groups are allowed to access the site while it is turned off. Users in the default webmasters group are always granted access.)

updated the spreadsheet, I hadn't done the lookup to the glossary properly, think it is OK now.

I'll be the first to admit I am prone to thinking too much, perhaps over cautious but I really think we need to focus on the system module, define the terms there.
Move that over to perhaps one of the most common modules and then leave that as the end of this particular Action Item.

The readme documentation I think needs to be a seperate action. It is of course all related but we need to keep these actions small and focussed, builiding on each previous one as we go.

What do you think?

******

Here is an update of jorge's spreadsheet.

I have added jen's glossary from before and linked it in. Any term that was not yet defined, I added the phrase 'to be defined' to.

There is a new sheet called LABELS.
This contains a simple lookup to the glossary.
It shows which terms have not yet been defined.
NOTE- sorry, the lookup is only for the main labels, in blue, not for the green ones...we can tidy it up later if needed but the green sub-items are not necessarily needing defining anyway?? wodyer think?

It also shows where the same term appears and hence helps consistency checking. (Look at 'functions' ro 'edit' as a good example)

I suggest, jen go through the LABELS sheet, decide which terms need defining and define them. (just overwrite the glossary sheet with an updated version if you have one)

jorge and I can continue with the system and one of the content management modules (these are the most frequently used) and produce a similar setup.

the outcome would hopefully be a clear, consistent definition of the main UI terms and labels.

this is of course the start, not the end

Quote:

I would be up for that (literally probably )

can you arrange that? I have a server we can use to setup a module. I use a mac at home and work. I am in Japan which timewise should be close to Jen but pretty different from Venezuela I would thinnk...

just a kwik sorry, had some things I need to deal with, hope to be back in tomorrow...sorry.

Great work guys.


jorge, I will look at the spreadsheet and update it with my ideas from before. I really do like your proposed new interface and so we can map the spreadsheet to it (order of elements ) to make it easier to work with.

jen how about comparing a couple of readmes (system and/or core modules would be best since that is the focus but any that are laden with the terminology would work) with a view to
- pulling out the terms that the readmes use and misuse
- listing the terms that could be used to make things clearer.
- any terms that really need defining but are not so generic, really belong only to this module....

This would then link up to the terminology matrix...

Ultimately, providing a recommended readme ?? being careful of course not to do any toe-treading.

Is that what you meant?? Let's check wavelengths again

great, thanks jorge.

Quote:
I like having the option, I like the visuals of the icons but when I have a lot of modules, the menu is a great space saver...undecided sorry.

Quote:
Yes please!!!! This alone is great.

Quote:
This too, is a must.

Quote:
The language selection is an excellent idea but I am not sure that is the best place for it...
Also the breadcrumb information does not fit the flow. I think it causes confusion/detracts.
In the example, your panel reads [General Settings]

How about the panel takes the name of the option that has been chosen. [Preferences : General Settings] this , with the larger styles, takes your eye to things directly and reduces confusion.

Quote:
Yes, I think this is much cleaner. Even better would perhaps be the ability to turn this on / off but we digress....
Quote:
I like it...

I like the wordbook - thanks for that. It has categories and the cross-linking seems good.
It would be straightforward enough to populate it with a list from excel etc...I think i will run it on our site and see if the teachers like it (or actually use it )

in trying to synch our wavelengths, it seems to me that what I was looking it is really a sub-set of a full XOOPS terminology reference such as you are making.

The terms I am concerned about are specifically those that I feel need to be standardised to prevent inconsistency and confusion. i.e. we need to help developers of modules by 'asking' them to use this term and not that term for their UI and admin UI elements, labels and references.

Hence, compare current modules, propose a 'standard' term.

These items that need to be standardised, though would of course appear in a full reference work.

Preferrably, the reference would contain those terms we would rather were not used as well, with an entry to that effect.

Maybe the wavelengths are not so dissimilar, it might be good to consider categories for the terms...

general
UI specific
SQL specific
admin specific

etc...