Re: [xwiki-devs] [Brainstorming] "Child/sibling/descendant page" vs "subpage"

Hi Jean, On 18 Sep 2015 at 12:05:22, Jean SIMARD (jean.simard@xwiki.com(mailto:jean.simard@xwiki.com)) wrote: Check definition 3 of https://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/enfant "(Par extension) Descendant direct et indirect. Nous sommes tous enfants d’Adam.”

Thanks -Vincent > On 18/09/2015 12:00, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: >> >> >> On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:51:21, Marius Dumitru Florea (mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 12:34 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: >>>> >>>> On 18 Sep 2015 at 11:27:33, Marius Dumitru Florea (mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com(mailto:mariusdumitru.florea@xwiki.com)) wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2015 at 3:10 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On 17 Sep 2015 at 13:32:28, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002@gmail.com(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> With the introduction of Nested Spaces / Nested Documents, we find >>>>>>> ourselves having to expand our terminology to accommodate the tree-like >>>>>>> structure of spaces/documents that we are managing. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> IMO, we have started going in the wrong direction with using standard tree >>>>>>> terminology directly in XWiki's UI, introducing new terms that simple users >>>>>>> could be easily confused by or overwhelmed (this adding to the already >>>>>>> existing ones). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The specific issue I have in mind is how do we refer child entities for >>>>>>> each concept (wiki, space, page) and how does this scale when the hierarchy >>>>>>> increases. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> What I propose is that we Keep It SSimple (*™*) :) and just use the "sub" >>>>>>> prefix for the concept at hand. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Examples: >>>>>>> * wiki -> subwiki (here we can continue using "wiki", as discussed >>>>>>> previously [1], since we don`t actually support nested wikis yet, but if >>>>>>> "subwiki" is used in a conversation it still makes perfect sense) >>>>>>> * space -> subspace [2] >>>>>>> * page -> subpage [3] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The problem with the term "child", as pointed out by Marius in an offline >>>>>>> chat, has indeed the issue that it can only be applied correctly for first >>>>>>> level descendants, after which it becomes inaccurate, since starting with >>>>>>> the second level the term "descendant" is more appropriate. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> I’m not sure about this. I think Children could be used generically to mean any level of Children but would need to be checked. >>>>> >>>>> If you have A.B.C: >>>>> >>>>> * the "Children" viewer (live table) will show "B, C" for A >>>> >>>> I think right now it also shows A but this could be fixed. >>>> >>>>> * the "Siblings" viewer (live table) will show only "B" (or nothing?) for B >>>> >>> >>>> There’s no sibling for C in your definition. >>> >>> Yes, I know what siblings are :) but I said "for B" not "for C". >>> >>>> >>>> If you had: >>>> A.B.C >>>> A.B.D >>>> A.E >>>> >>>> Then the sibling for A.B.C would be A.B.D. Thus if you’re on A.B.C and ask for Sibling you’ll see D in the LT. >>>> >>> >>>> If you’re on A.B and ask for siblings you’ll see only E (and not E, C, D since C and D are not siblings of A.B). >>> >>> So you don't think that the statement >>> >>> "E and C are both children of A but they are not siblings because they >>> don't have he same parent" >>> >>> is confusing? >> >> I guess it depends how you consider Children. If you consider it to mean Children, grand-children, grand-grand-children, etc and use it as a general means, I guess it’s fine. I don’t know if this is acceptable in English or not. What I know is that if you say “Enfants” in French it can mean either immediate Children or all the children in the hierarchy (grand-children, grand-grand-children). >> >> Said differently, I have the feeling it’s better to have a More Actions menu entry named “Children” than having one named “Descendants” because I feel Children is a term more used. >> >> Thanks >> -Vincent >> >>>> Thanks >>>> -Vincent >>>> >>>>> So B and C are both children of A but are not siblings. That can be >>>>> confusing. You need the tree view to see the actual hierarchy. >>>>> >>>>> Thanks, >>>>> Marius >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> All of this becomes unnecessarily complicated and, IMO, we should avoid >>>>>>> dealing with it by using the "sub" prefix which is much easier to grasp and >>>>>>> accept. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On a similar note, I also find the term "nested" to be a bit unnecessarily >>>>>>> complicated, specially for non-technical and non-english native users. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> I don’t like the “Sub" terminology because it’s incomplete. It’s not complete because you still need words for Parents, Siblings, Root, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'd much prefer to use a standard Tree terminology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_(data_structure)#Terminologies_used_in_T… >>>>>> >>>>>> BTW Terminal Page could be replaced by Leaf Page if we wanted too but maybe that’s too technical? >>>>>> >>>>>> I’d be ok to replace subwiki by Child Wiki/Children Wikis to be consistent. >>>>>> >>>>>> So overall I find Child/Children, Parent, and Siblings very easy to understand by any simple user. I find that using Sub, Parent, Siblings is not better (and it would certainly not replace Sibling). >>>>>> >>>>>> WDYT? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks >>>>>> -Vincent >>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> Eduard >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ---------- >>>>>>> [1] http://markmail.org/message/cehvpds5qmljq5f7 >>>>>>> [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subspace >>>>>>> [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpage >>>>>>