On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:13 AM, Vratislav Podzimek <vpodzime@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2013-07-25 at 10:48 -0600, Chris Murphy wrote: >> >> It looks usable, although there still is much redundancy, however. e.g. English, English, English, (United States). Of the four fields, only two contain the necessary information to make a selection: the first and last (in parenthesis) fields. The superfluous information does clutter the interface with a lot of text. > Well, we display the English and "native" name for the language and the > native name for the locale. The thing is that for English, the English > and "native" names are the same, but it's an exception. OK bad example on my part. I'm saying all of the "English" equivalents for all the languages, is visual clutter. It's not actually useful for anyone. Example. I don't speak or read Chinese or Czech. 汉语 isn't recognizable to me. But "Chinese" is. So how am I aided by seeing "Chinese" next to 汉语? I'm not. And for a Chinese speaker, "Chinese" isn't particularly useful either, rather they're looking for 汉语 or maybe Hànyǔ, but not "Chinese". Likewise čeština is useful for someone who recognizes it and wants that as the selected language. The word Czech isn't useful to them. It's not useful to an English speaker either, because even though I recognize the word Czech, if I choose it, I won't be able to use the computer. So the point is that the english equivalents (all borrowed from other languages, btw) have no function. It just takes up space. > I could drop > the language name in the locale name and show just the variants, but > they won't be the full names of the locales. I think that's a good thing. The bird's eye view, the page taken as a whole, does contain the full names of locales: the left side list is the language, the right side list is the territory (region). Language + territory = locale. Otherwise, what you have is a left side UI that's language, and a right side UI that's locale. Or broken down, it's language + language + territory. > They are ordered in the way the 'langtable' [1] sorts them which means > from the one with the highest rank (the most probable one) to the one > with the lowest rank (the least probable one). I'm not saying that the > ranking/order is perfect, Designed for probability, rather than for human interaction. It's totally reasonable and logical, and probably even works well for say the top three locales. But after that, lower ranked users have a net negative UX. > but that should be tweaked in the langtable. Yes fair enough, I agree. Chris Murphy _______________________________________________ Anaconda-devel-list mailing list Anaconda-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/anaconda-devel-list
