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
