Re: [Libreoffice] Better wording for 'Update links' question

On 12/22/2010 03:11 PM, Kohei Yoshida wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-22 at 13:06 -0500, Joe Smith wrote:
...
> > Believe me, I'm no fan of this cryptic prompt, but I'm afraid this won't
> > be an improvement. The wording of the prompt is not the primary problem.
>
> I'm not sure if I agree with that view.  This *will* be an improvement,
> and although the wording alone will not be enough to fix this
> *completely*, improving the wording itself is a step in the right
> direction.

Sure, it's hard to argue that an incremental improvement is not worth 
while, but if you go to the doctor with a broken arm and you get a 
Band-Aid and a pat on the back, is that an improvement? Better than 
nothing? How about 10 Band-Aids? 100?

If 100 Band-Aids won't help, does it still make sense to do one?

If we did a trial with the old prompt and the improved prompt and found 
that both groups performed the same (that's my prediction), would it be 
worth the cost in making the change? Would some users actually do worse 
when faced with an unfamiliar prompt?

Even small changes incur some cost. You know better than I what cost is 
involved in making even a simple string change: updating translations, 
help text, etc. Retraining people who are confused by the change?

You're doing the work: if you feel it's worth the cost, then make the 
change. We've already spent more time discussing it than it's worth--sorry.

> ...
> > The decision at hand is too complex for an accurate prompt, given the
> > way OOo uses links: links may point not only to external data, but also
> > to internal data,
>
> Links that point to internal data!?  Can you give us an example of how
> the app links to an internal data?  I can't think of any such example,
> and it's not supposed to include internal data as external links.

If you want to make labels, and choose the "synchronize" option so that 
all labels share the same set of fields, you get a Writer document with 
one editable "master" label, and the others automatically following the 
master through linked sections, i.e., internal links.

If you then merge in data to generate a sheet full of different 
addresses and send the output to a new document, then open that document 
to check the results, you get the "Update links?" prompt. If you answer 
"yes", then Writer copies the address data from the master label to all 
the others, and it looks like the merge has failed and only the first 
record was processed.

The old prompt will be more accurate than the new one in this case.

I'll send a sample document if you want to try it.

You might say this is an unusual and inconsequential case, but 
generating labels in this way is a very common task, and people do 
actually trip over it.

Look, I'm not a UI guy. This is just my $0.02. I'm sorry to butt in; the 
UX people can surely provide better advice.

<Joe