sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results
- From: flux <flux AT sourcemage.org>
- To: sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results
- Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 18:34:16 -0500
Jaka Kranjc (smgl AT lynxlynx.info) wrote [08.03.31 18:11]:
> So here is the sorted initial list of the shortcuts and what they woud run:
> cc - cast --queue (who can spell queue anyway?)
> cp - cleanse --prune
> dd - dispel --downgrade
> gs - gaze search
> gv - gaze version
> sg - sorcery upgrade
> sh - sorcery hold
> sq - sorcery -q
> su - scribe update
In my opinion these are a very bad idea. They will confuse users more
(because the meaning behind them will be hidden), and worse, they will
confuse the user's system (try doing a "cp X Y" when cleanse is
renamed..or compile something with cast --queue? :-P). In my opinion
it's better to keep the sorcery/cleanse/etc., but clean up the name
space for consistency. As an example, dispel -d doesn't dispel (well,
OK, it does, but it also casts, which is the important part). This
should be moved to cast -d in my opinion. Also, having all the different
cast/gaze/cleanse/scribe commands accessible via sorcery (like sorcery
cast $SPELL) would help, because then users really only need to remember
one command: sorcery. If they forget what to do with it, RTFM :) If
someone wants the short commands, then they can make their own aliases
or wrapper scripts.
--
Justin "flux" Boffemmyer
Cauldron wizard and general mage
Source Mage GNU/Linux
http://www.sourcemage.org
Attachment:
pgpv9mOuNKU9I.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-
[SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
flux, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Ladislav Hagara, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Eric K Sandall, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
seth, 03/31/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, Eric K Sandall, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
seth, 03/31/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, Ismael Luceno, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Eric K Sandall, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Ladislav Hagara, 03/31/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
flux, 03/31/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.