[Xfce4-commits] r29004 - in xfce4-mixer/trunk: . panel-plugin xfce4-mixer
Brian J. Tarricone
bjt23 at cornell.edu
Thu Dec 11 01:06:28 CET 2008
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."
More information about the Xfce4-dev