[Xfce4-commits] r29004 - in xfce4-mixer/trunk: . panel-plugin xfce4-mixer

[Brian J. Tarricone]

Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
> Am Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:25:04 -0800
> schrieb "Brian J. Tarricone" <bjt23 at cornell.edu>:
> 
>> Just a few notes..
>>
>> Jannis Pohlmann wrote:
>>
>>>        message = g_strdup_printf (_("Could not execute the command
>>> %s. "
>>> -                                   "Perhaps you need to adjust the
>>> PATH variable."), 
>>> +                                   "Perhaps the PATH variable
>>> needs adjustment."), mixer_plugin->command);
>> This is a minor nitpick, but... probably a better phrasing would be 
>> simply "Ensure that the PATH environment variable includes the
>> location of the command" (I don't like the last half of that, but the
>> phrasing is better").  Why?
>>
>> 1.  It notifies the user clearly that they may need to do something.
>> 2.  It is precise -- "variable" is ambiguous, "environment variable"
>> is not. 3.  It tells the user what kind of adjustment is necessary.
>>
>> Of course, if they get to this point, the average user won't really
>> have a clue what to do anyway, no matter what the dialog says, so it
>> might be a moot point.
> 
> How about something like the following?
> 
>   "Could not execute the command %s. Ensure that either the location of
>    the command is included in the PATH environment variable or the full 
>    path of the command is given."
> 
> Not sure about the "given", but providing the full path of the command
> is an alternative to fiddling with PATH at least.

Yeah, that sounds good.  Maybe reverse that last bit to "... or provide 
the full path to the command."  I dunno, I constantly go back and forth 
in my head on the whole passive voice in dialogs thing.  I think in this 
instance it's more appropriate to be active.

Also for consistency, I'd say surround the %s with double quotes.

>> Maybe I wasn't really clear on the whole "avoid addressing the user 
>> directly" thing.  It's more about not using "you" sentences and being
>> a little more target-neutral.  
> 
> Target-neutral, like considering another userbase besides humans? :p 
> I mean "you" is pretty much target-neutral already. 

Haha, no, not non-humans.  Let me try to put it in a different way... if 
you're phrasing a request of the user in such a way that you need to use 
the pronoun "you," try to find another way to say it.  "You should fill 
in the box." -> "Fill in the box."   "Foo won't work if you don't enter 
Bar." -> "Foo won't work without entering Bar."

	-b