Consistent Terminology

[OzzyKP]

Change is hard.  Even when y'all have done lots of great work to make it as easy to transition as possible.  I propose a small thing to ease us into the new site.  Can we keep the same terms we've gotten used to on OGMW?

On OGMW we posted in "threads", here they are called "topics".  A small difference, to be sure, but also one that should be fairly easy to fix if desired. 

Also, when we go to the Manage Game menu we are able to "Add Game Feature".  One option (which we will no doubt use the most) is "Topics".  It took me a bit to figure out that this is a collection of threads, not an individual thread.  (topic vs. topics...).  Also, after selecting that, the title across the top of the pop up window is "Add Game Feature", this is also a minor confusion.  Am I adding a topic?  A thread?  A forum?  A "feature"? 

Adding more confusion, once you have a "Topics" area, there is a button that says "Mark Forum as Read".  Is this referring to this topic area?  Or the whole game? And when you go back into the Manage Game menu it gives you options to "Edit this Forum" or "Delete this Forum". 

 

So to conform to our own common usage of terms and to have it internally consistent, I propose we stick to the following terms:

Site (everything on myth-weavers.com)

---> Forums (all the forums on the site)

--------> Forum (a specific forum, i.e. the Site Feedback forum)

--------------> Thread (a specific thread, i.e. this Consistent Terminology thread I've just posted)

--------------------> Post

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 28, 2022 by OzzyKP (see edit history)

[Colin]

We’ll have to confirm word usage across things (as in where the words are used in every spot on the site to avoid possible surprises), but there should be no issue with the change as far as I’m aware. We just haven’t adjusted the Invision word usage since back in 2021 when the closed beta began and “Clubs” were renamed to “Games.”

[Eric]

Tracking.

[Butchern]

I have tried consistently to use the Invision terminology (topics, pages, etc.) in all of the parts of the guides that I wrote or rewrote because that language matches what users would see when they actually use Baldr. Changing, for example, "topic" to "thread" wouldn't be hard to do in the guides if that is the direction we decided to go.

 

That said, I don't much care if we use the old or the new terminology, personally. Either is fine with me. Though, as I have said before many times, I don't find the "we should make the new site as much like the old site as possible" a convincing argument for anything, and, in fact, would recommend against that kind of thinking in most cases.

Edited December 28, 2022 by Butchern (see edit history)

[Shocker]

25 minutes ago, Butchern said:

…

 

That said, I don't much care if we use the old or the new terminology, personally. Either is fine with me. Though, as I have said before many times, I don't find the "we should make the new site as much like the old site as possible" a convincing argument for anything, and, in fact, would recommend against that kind of thinking in most cases.

I just wanted to express my agreement with that last statement, just because something has been a certain way for a long time, it doesn’t make it automatically the best or correct way to do things. Just as nit everything new is automatically better as tested methods, for example building a bridge out if cheese would be novel, but not be useful. 

[Khakhan]

I kind of agree with both aspects of this. The comparison will be made, but I think maybe rather than change all the names, perhaps the guides could be drawn up as "This thing used to be called that thing, remember that and keep it in mind going forward." 

 

Anecdotally, one of the best sorta tips I got from a language instructor was "Stop thinking in terms of 'gato means cat in Spanish', if you can. Instead, think of it as *points to cat*, this un gato."

 

It sorta changes the mindset to learning what Baldr is capable of in itself, as a separate entity from OGMW, while also allowing you to have the comparison without any drawbacks of OGMW bleeding into the mentality of Baldr. If that makes sense? 

[OzzyKP]

Perhaps I didn't make my case very well in my initial post.  I'm not saying that we should just make everything the same as the old site because that's the way we've always done it.

Maybe bullet points will be clearer:

1. Structure should conform to the users, not the other way around.  One of my favorite stories about Buckminster Fuller is when he was tasked with designing sidewalks on a college campus.  Instead of sitting down with a pencil and a drafting table to sketch out a nice grid or design where the new sidewalks go, he ripped out the existing sidewalks, put down grass seed and waited a few months to see what foot-trod paths the students cut through the grass on their own.  Then, once he could see which paths the students were walking in naturally he put the sidewalks in along those same paths.  If people more naturally think in terms of "threads" instead of "topics" why should we force them to adopt new terminology for a concept they already understand and use? 

2. The current labels are confusing.  When we go to the Manage Game menu we are able to "Add Game Feature".  One option (which we will no doubt use the most) is "Topics".  It took me a bit to figure out that this is a collection of threads, not an individual thread.  (topic vs. topics...).  Also, after selecting that, the title across the top of the pop up window is "Add Game Feature", this is also a minor confusion.  Am I adding a topic?  A thread?  A forum?  A "feature"?  Also topic, category and tag all sound like similar ideas/concepts, which could create more confusion. 

3. The current labels are inconsistent.  We currently have buttons/links that say "Mark Forum as Read", "Edit this Forum" and "Delete this Forum".  If a collection of "topics" is a forum, why doesn't it say forum elsewhere?  Why does it say "topics" one place and "forum" somewhere else?  The user guide also is inconsistent and regularly refers to things as threads instead of topics.  Why?  Because "thread" comes naturally to us and is more broadly understood.

[Eric]

Since the details are very clearly going to be a matter of individual opinion, let me just put a bow on this conversation by saying that we do have an open card on our Trello to evaluate and make sure the names for things are consistent (at the very least, internally).