Hi,

Le lundi 23 mars 2015, 23:43:46 Ricordisamoa a écrit :

"New system"? Why is "Flow" a taboo word?

"Flow" is jargon and is meaningless for many people who have never heard of it. I would have avoided writing "LiquidThreads" as well if I had been able to find another periphrasis for it.

And why make people think it will have all of LQT's features?

Where in the newsletter does it say that?

On 7 April 2015 at 02:47, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:

If it is never mentioned, how could they hear of it?

Or are they supposed to ignore even the name of the software they use?

@Ricordisamoa yes, an average, ordinary user is supposed, maybe even 'meant' not to know pre-RTM names of software he/she uses (code names? correct me if I'm wrong, if 'Flow' is the final name). All proper names, all names that require explanation and thus can be confusing, are taboo. 'Don't use jargon' is a basic rule. For example, if I wrote to a newbie (or a non-tech/occasional user) 'look at your Echo', he wouldn't grab it, no way. Of course, from long-term pov, 'new system' isn't good enough, because some day, it won't be actually 'new'. But it's descriptive and for the time being, for weekly news, it's optimal.

On Apr 6, 2015 11:05 PM, "Szymon Grabarczuk" tar.locesilion@gmail.com wrote:

On 7 April 2015 at 02:47, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org

wrote:

...

If it is never mentioned, how could they hear of it? Or are they supposed to ignore even the name of the software they use?

@Ricordisamoa yes, an average, ordinary user is supposed, maybe even

'meant' not to know pre-RTM names of software he/she uses (code names? correct me if I'm wrong, if 'Flow' is the final name). All proper names, all names that require explanation and thus can be confusing, are taboo. 'Don't use jargon' is a basic rule. For example, if I wrote to a newbie (or a non-tech/occasional user) 'look at your Echo', he wouldn't grab it, no way. Of course, from long-term pov, 'new system' isn't good enough, because some day, it won't be actually 'new'. But it's descriptive and for the time being, for weekly news, it's optimal.

-- Szymon Grabarczuk

Free Knowledge Advocacy Group EU Head of Research & Development Group, Wikimedia Polska pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Użytkownik:Tar_Lócesilion

http://pl.wikimedia.org/wiki/U%C5%BCytkownik:Tar_L%C3%B3cesilion

Reducing jargon is great, but if you never use a proper noun, it can be hard to understand what you are talking about and furthermore difficult for a user to verify they understood correctly (its much easier to ask someone if what i am pointing to is "flow". If i ask someone if what i am pointing to is "the thingy which has to do with talk pages" the response is going to be depends on what you mean by thingy.)

Fwiw, my understanding is that flow is the final name not a code name. At least i hope so, we have been treating it as a final name and previous examples of rebranding things on release have only served to cause mass confusion.

--bawolff

Il 07/04/2015 18:06, Guillaume Paumier ha scritto:

Hi,

On Mon, Apr 6, 2015 at 5:47 PM, Ricordisamoa ricordisamoa@openmailbox.org wrote:

...

If it is never mentioned, how could they hear of it? Or are they supposed to ignore even the name of the software they use?

Whenever I write "new discussion system", I link to the Flow page. I'm assuming that any editor is able to follow the link and learn the name, if they're interested or have a question about the feature. Until now, I thought that link was enough.

Better than nothing.

If you feel strongly that we must include jargon in the newsletter itself, we can add the name in parentheses in future issues, for example like this: « … the new talk system ("Flow") ».

I feel strongly that we must /not/ include "jargon" in the newsletter. But I really don't think "Flow" is jargon.

However, if we do this, I want us all to be sure that we're doing it because we genuinely think it's best for the readers, and not because of our respective personal feelings towards such or such feature.

I thought Tech News were primarily for editors, not readers.