help-gnu-emacs
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: Change terminology to better align users’ experience with modern GUI


From: 조성빈
Subject: Re: Change terminology to better align users’ experience with modern GUIs
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2019 19:13:26 +0900


> 2019. 7. 23. 오후 6:37, Jean Louis <bugs@gnu.support> 작성:
> 
> * 조성빈 <pcr910303@icloud.com> [2019-07-23 08:47]:
>> Is there any intent or interest in updating the terminology of Emacs 
>> documentation/function names to better align users’ experience with modern 
>> GUIs? 
>> 
>> For example, `window' and `buffer' in emacs is more meaningful when
>> explained as `pane' or `document'.
> 
> One word may have different definitions, right?
> 
> The Emacs manual explains the definitions.
> 
> I understand your viewpoint, you learned some other definitions for
> same words and now you face little confusion. But imagine how many
> people are there, so many of them would come from random environments
> and would be faced with new definitions, so it would not be feasible
> to change definitions to satisfy each particular wish, but I know that
> changes and modifications are made by Emacs developers whenever it
> benefits the majority.

No, I’ve been using Emacs for about ~2 years, definitely not an Emacs guru
but done enough elisp that I understand what each term means.

> In Emacs `buffer' is not necessarily connected to any file
> document. Do you know?

I’m aware of that.
The reason why I was suggesting `document' is because that’s what other
editors usually call that; I would be totally fine for another kind of term
that’s meanings are clear to new users.

>> Especially the term `window' is a frequent source of confusion to
>> Emacs newcomers which confuse them to `frame'.
> 
> Me not sure about that. I did not have confusion since 1999, since I
> started using Emacs and stopped using that other system. But I did
> take my time to read the books and manuals, and there were too many
> new definitions of commands and terminology in the GNU/Linux system.
> 
> So facing the new terminology ALWAYS take place when learning some new
> subject.

Yes, it is true. When learning a new subject (especially when it comes 
to emacs) people should look forwards to learn new terminology.
However, it might be good practice to lower the barriers to approach Emacs
to a lot of people, considering that the majority of people who are using
computers have used graphical window systems.

>> IMO in my ideal world, there should be no division between `window' and 
>> `buffer', the difference should be abstracted away so that users don’t have 
>> to know the `window' notion at all.
>> However that currently isn’t the case, there are multiple occurrences (and a 
>> dedicated chapter) in the Emacs manual about `window' and `buffer'.
>> 
>> Changing the `window' term to `pane' or something else seems like a 
>> low-hanging fruit for people who would like to try using Emacs; I’m 
>> interested/curious on other people’s opinions about this.
> 
> I am also not native English speaker. It should be logical from
> physical world that a window consists of frames and panes eventually.
> 
> Those definitions are different from Emacs terminology.
> 
> And I would leave it how it is. Do you know why?
> 
> Because Emacs is an important part of civilization and development of
> many other apparently not related pieces of software.

Because Emacs is an important part of civilization and development,
it might be better to adopt with the ‘outer world’ so that it can keep
gathering people.

> It brings to easier understanding of its history. I have here a
> document AI Memo 554, from October 22nd 1981, EMACS Manual for ITS
> Users. Now I am not sure if they had any graphical environment at that
> time.
> 
> That company that sells operating system Windows maybe started in the
> same year some plans for it, but nothing was released until
> 1985. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Windows#Early_versions
> 
> And in the EMACS Manual for ITS Users the words "windows" are
> mentioned.

I understand the ‘why’ part of the original terminology; however, while
ITS has been discontinued for a long time, Emacs is used in the 21th
century where windowing systems are common (the majority).
Updating the terminology in a way that doesn’t interfere with the original
ones doesn’t harm IMO.

> What if they did not use graphical system? Then it was a console or
> terminal based application. Monitor would not be considered a window
> so that screen tilings become pane.

I’m not sure if the term `pane' implies that, for example people use 
the terminology `pane' in tmux, a terminal multiplexer.

> I think that logic of "window" comes from the console or terminal
> based operation.
> 
> And Emacs is widely used through terminal modes, so changing
> terminology would break the logic for those users.

While I know such people who use Emacs exclusively in terminals, most of them
have used/use window systems; they are very familiar with the usual `window’
terminology in general.
IMHO, the change of terminology wouldn’t be an issue to terminal users as the
terminology `pane’ also makes sense in terminals.

> Jean
> 




reply via email to

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