[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props

From: Carl Sorensen
Subject: Re: renaming "vertical spacing inside systems" props
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 15:09:43 -0600

On 11/2/10 2:56 PM, "Mark Polesky" <address@hidden> wrote:

> (trying to make this as painless as possible...)
> Renaming proposals, round 2:
> ------------       -------------
> next-staff         staff-staff
> default-next-staff default-staff-staff
> inter-staff        nonstaff-staff

How about nonstaff-affinity (to match the nonstaff-nonaffinity)?

> inter-loose-line   nonstaff-nonstaff
> non-affinity       nonstaff-nonaffinity
> between-staff      (see below)
> after-last-staff   staffgroup-staff
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
> Notes:
> 1) "nonstaff" beat out "loose" by a large margin.
>    Sorry Carl!  (:

I was one of those votes at the end!

> 2) all the ideas for "between-staff" so far:
>    * names consistent with the item1-item2 format
>      a) groupstaff-groupstaff       (Trevor)
>      b) groupedstaff-groupedstaff   (Trevor)
>      c) grouped-staff-staff         (Mark)
>    * shorter names
>      d) inside-staffgroup           (Mark)
>      e) grouped-staff               (Carl)
>      f) grouped-staves              (Carl)

First, you'll hear my comment as a design instructor who is trying to teach
students how to work in teams to select the best design concepts: Never
associate an idea with the person who thought of it -- that can put the
focus on *who* is right instead of *what* is right.

Second, I liked your thoughts on the rationales behind the various naming
systems.  Given all of the thoughts you so eloquently expressed, my final
choice comes down to either a) or f).  As far as a) is concerned, I think
that users can understand the difference between StaffGrouper  and
groupstaff, and the top-bottom consistency is admirable.  I could easily
support a.

However, given that we have a StaffGrouper property, I think that
grouped-staves is a good name, even though it doesn't match the pattern.  SO
I could also support f.

As far as I'm concerned,  you can choose either one and I'll be fine. (I'd
also be fine with c).

I just thought of a c': within-group-staff-staff.  Longer, but might explain
it more clearly.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]