Subject: Re: Suggestion: Change "Export..." to "Save Copy..."
From: Nils Barth (nils_barth@post.harvard.edu)
Date: Thu Aug 23 2001 - 13:04:23 CDT
On 2001-08-23-14:08, rob.campbell@att.net wrote:
> You have it right, with the addition that both functions
> allow the file to be saved in a different format. In
> the case of "Save As...", the format of the working
> document changes. So if I "Save As..." TEST.ABW to
> TEST.RTF, the next time I use plain old "Save", it will
> also save as RTF. In the case of "Export...", the
> format of the working document does not change.
>
> I still prefer the clarity of "Save
> Copy...". "Export..." is confusing to some users, and I
> doubt they are of the church secretary variety. The
> only advantage that "Export..." has is that there is a
> parallel "Import..." command. And I don't see why that
> couldn't be changed to "Open Copy...".
Could I second this?
I mentioned this before (suggesting one change `Export/Import...' to
`Export/Import Copy...'), and `Save Copy.../Open Copy...' seem more
transparent.
Saying "We'll just have good documentation" is a cop-out -- functions
should have clear names if possible: documentation is support for
good design, not replacement.
If obscure names didn't matter, we could call these functions `Z:Z:Z:'
and `QMQMQM', and have people look it up in the documentation.
That is, `Open Copy...' `Save Copy...' give the user a very good idea
of what the menuitem will do, one which can be
confirmed/clarified/supported by the documentation, while
`Import'/`Export' are unclear and require that one guess, and then
check out the help system.
For the record, I had to experiment with the `Import' function in
order to figure what it did.
-- -nils
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Aug 23 2001 - 12:52:44 CDT