sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org
Subject: Public SourceMage Discussion List
List archive
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results
- From: "Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik" <ruskie AT codemages.net>
- To: <sm-discuss AT lists.ibiblio.org>
- Subject: Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results
- Date: Wed, 02 Apr 2008 07:15:09 +0200
On 22:31:34 2008-04-01 David Kowis <dkowis AT shlrm.org> wrote:
> Karsten Behrmann wrote:
> >> 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
> >
> > Good idea, but that list desperately needs adding to.
> >
> > ac - alter --md5mend ("Checksum" is far more futureproof than md5)
> > as - alter --strip
> > at - gaze activity
> > cd - cast --download
> > co - cast -c ("COmpile")
> > df - dispel --nosustain (every one knows it's "Force" anyway)
> > ex - dispel --exile
> > ls - gaze license
> > nc - cast -r ("New Config")
> > pr - gaze provides
> > ri - scribe reindex
> > wc - gaze what ("What will this Cast do?")
> >
>
> Lets take something we claim is confusing and make it more confusing!
>
> This is a horrible idea. You don't increase the usability and clarity
> of something by making obscure shortcuts. Doing it in the style of git
> might be better for usability, or if we wanted to stay within a
> namespace. Personally I think we're doing pretty well.
>
> I tend to agree with what sqweek has said. Refinement of our existing
> namespace to better define what things do.
>
> David
I belive the term is April Fools ;)
--
Andraž "ruskie" Levstik
Source Mage GNU/Linux Games grimoire guru
Geek/Hacker/Tinker
Be sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.
Key id = F4C1F89C
Key fingerprint = 6FF2 8F20 4C9D DB36 B5B6 F134 884D 72CC F4C1 F89C
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 04/01/2008
- <Possible follow-up(s)>
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
sqweek, 04/01/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, Ismael Luceno, 04/01/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Karsten Behrmann, 04/01/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
David Kowis, 04/01/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Thomas Orgis, 04/02/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, Robert Figura, 04/02/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, David Kowis, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
eekee57, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 04/02/2008
- Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results, eekee57, 04/04/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Jaka Kranjc, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Thomas Orgis, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
Andraž 'ruskie' Levstik, 04/02/2008
-
Re: [SM-Discuss] RFC: sorcery usabilty study results,
David Kowis, 04/01/2008
Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.