GuiCommand model Wiki page

[Roy_043]

I have to say that I am frustrated about this. We are having a discussion about the GuiCommand model here. Why was this not raised first in this discussion? And we are not talking about 1 or 2 pages but 30-40 pages that were 'corrected' often within a day of me adding the information about the button.

[david69]

hi Roy_043, talking about prefix, it is only with your post (Roy_043 » 02 mars 2021, 09:21) with the image in attachment that it jumps to my eyes and I made the connection with my recent modification on the FEM & Mesh wiki pages. I think you are refering to this.
sorry if I didn't catch the request before.

if I can go further, there is one point I'd like to raise:
when I translate, I verify as much as I can in the GUI in my language what are the wording for the button and also in the path. Most of the times they are differents. I am only talking about the tools and seldomly about other wording.
for the English version of the wiki, I have remarked that the wording of the button and the path are usually similar and are limited to command name, so, pretty far from what the reader/user is experimenting.

so i wonder what should be done: write the reality or the name of the command of the tool. I am only talking about the English version.

[Roy_043]

David, you are missing what this topic is all about. You participate in the discussion, but then correct pages that follow the standard that has been established. I find this very hard to understand.

I get the impression that you want the standard to follow whatever is your current approach (see image). Which effectively means that there is no standard and we keep revising the same pages again, and again, and again...

[david69]

Roy_043, you are absolutely right when you underline my own inconsistencies in my translations. That's my bad.

nevertheless, i think we should not put the workbench into the command in the conditions i have expressed above and put the wording that the user is reading on the GUI.

it is my simple opinion.

[Roy_043]

I am having more and more doubts about leaving out the workbench prefix. With the prefix it is obvious that you are dealing with the name of the linked page. Without it there is a lot of room for interpretation and second guessing.

Example:
Std CloseAllWindows
Remove the prefix and we have:
CloseAllWindows
An editor sees this and thinks this is a typo: two spaces are missing. The editor decides to correct this:
Close All Windows
Another editor determines that this does not match the text in the menu. Another correction leaves us with:
Close All

So I think we should only remove the workbench prefix in the Docnav.

[Roy_043]

put the wording that the user is reading on the GUI.

I am not in favor of this. I think we should not stray too far from the original model page.

[david69]

I'm not saying we need to read it everywhere, only one time, under Usage title, so the user can easily identify the command. The icon helps too.

English version.JPG (28.25 KiB) Viewed 2914 times

on a translated page, it gives

version francaise.JPG (33.68 KiB) Viewed 2914 times

the problem is to be coherent over the time, with other persons working on wiki.

[Roy_043]

I still think that this is a bad idea. In addition to the reasons already given: the tooltip text can be very long and even span multiple lines. Using it as the button label will not work in many cases.

[uwestoehr]

I join the discussion to change something:

For interlinks, we should use as links a name suitable for the average readers and not also the full internal name. So for example when referring to PartDesign_Pad we use normally this link (in normal text as well as in the Docnav):

Code: Select all

[[PartDesign_Pad|Pad]]

So far so good. And when referring to a feature in a "See Also" field of the GuiCommand table we should do the same. However Roy recently told me that I must then use

Code: Select all

[[PartDesign_Pad|PartDesign Pad]]

Can we please change this? As users when I click on the link, I will then soon enough see the full internal feature name. And also within FreeCAD we hide the full internal name and only call it "Pad".

[Roy_043]

Can we please change this?

Sorry for the delayed response, I took a break from wiki work and then other stuff got in the way, and then even more stuff came up...

I am against changing this.

Most SeeAlso links follow the general wiki standard for links, apparently this makes sense for the majority of editors. IMO we need very, very good reasons to deviate from that.

And I have serious doubts if hiding the workbench prefix is a good idea. You may argue that we should not bother the average reader with this. But workbenches are such a key concept of FreeCAD that hiding, obscuring, this information is actually ill advised.

Finally, whereas the Docnav for a workbench will only contain, what you call, interlinks, this is not the case for SeeAlso links. You may want to link to pages belonging to a different WB.
Example:
On the Mesh_Export page an editor may want to have the following SeeAlso links:
Mesh_Import
Std_Import
Std_Export
Import_Export
Leaving out some, or all of the WB prefixes would be very confusing.