Question of Terminology?

Hi Folks,

I am working to finish my (very slow) review of Jean's revision of
CG6204. In the process it occurred to me that in this and other guides
we have mostly used the term "Panel" to reference parts of the sidebar,
whereas the UX/Design folks and some support channels commonly refer to
sidebar "Decks".

While this is definitely not a critical issue, I feel that we should as
far as possible maintain consistency in the terminology we use to
identify the components of the software's UI.

Any thoughts, or should we discuss at the next meeting?

Dave

My 2c is that Panel is more commonly used and understood by the average person.

"Decks" may well be more familiar to those within the UX profession.

luke

Thanks Luke, your input (2c worth) is much appreciated. I am inclined to
agree with you on this specific aspect, but I am seeking general
consensus from the wider team/community on the standardization of this
and other terminologies used in our documentation.

Any other opinions about describing sidebar components as "Panels" or
"Decks" in the user guides?

Dave

In Dutch we also call it "Paneel" (Panel).
Don't know if this helps.

Greetings,
Kees

Dave Barton schreef op 30.05.2019 13:00:

I don't have strong opinions about what we should use, but keep in mind that we need two different terms to describe the subunits of sidebars.

Thus, at least in other LO guides I have worked on, "decks" are the equivalent of pages and "panels" are the equivalent of sections of pages. When I first ran across this usage, I remember thinking that "deck" seemed a somewhat unusual word for this context while "panel" seemed like a good choice for either a "page" or a "section."

An alternative could be to treat sidebars like dialogs, so they would be composed of pages, with each page containing sections. As someone with little knowledge of UX language, this would be more user friendly for me.

However, "deck" and "panel" are already being used in LO documentation. How important is it to be consistent with other documentation?

Howdy,

An example of deck and panel usage is in this blog from 2017
https://design.blog.documentfoundation.org/2017/02/16/guidelines-for-keyboard-navigation-in-the-sidebar/

OK, so we already have clear definitions in the HIG Guide:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/File:LO-HIG_SideeBar-Terminology.png
which I guess is the basis for Figure 8 on page 15 in chapter 1 of the
most recent Getting Started Guide.

I edited that chapter but do not remember running across the graphic in the wiki. In fact, I have rarely used the wiki, probably because I don't know what information is there.

Is there further information in the wiki or someplace else that specifies the terminology for UI elements?

Howdy,

For toolbars, including the newer notebook and grouped bars there is this
page:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Design/ToolBar

Useful listings:
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Documentation
https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/index.php?title=Special%3APrefixIndex&prefix=Design

Ilmari

Cathy Crumbley kirjoitti 31.5.2019 klo 20.05:

Dave Barton schreef op 31.05.2019 17:13:

OK, so we already have clear definitions in the HIG Guide:
File:LO-HIG SideeBar-Terminology.png - The Document Foundation Wiki
which I guess is the basis for Figure 8 on page 15 in chapter 1 of the
most recent Getting Started Guide.

Sounds good to me. No need for change I would say.

Kees

Regardless of any programming knowledge/habit/background..

I tend to consider panels as a static part of a window, which I turn is a
global container. I ‘ve come across those expressions:
- floating toolbars, dialogs or windows
- docked toolbars, dialogs or windows

I would dislike to ‘dock a deck’ as much as I refrain from floating/docking
a ´window’.

Although not discussed in this thread, multiplied panels/dialogs/ toolbars,
be they static or floating, lead me to extreme perplexity: Eclipse or the
Gimp are illustrations of blurred personal ‘perspectives’, despite their
attempts to assist me as a user. I suppose features richness comes with
complexity...