[cc'ing the bug this time] Hi Chris,
On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:58 PM Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> wrote: > > I would very much > suggest we repurpose "severity" here instead of inventing a new term. That is exactly what I thought you might think (and it is why I prepared a merge request instead of committing directly). Just one thought, please: Do you think the term severity may be, well, too severe? Ever since Michael Stapelberg called Lintian the policy's "programmatic embodiment" I have been trying to round its edges. (I even have a new logo idea, an L-shaped allen wrench instead of a square.) Is there not another, softer term like "alert level", "significance" or "relevance" we can use? Kind regards Felix On Fri, Mar 13, 2020 at 4:58 PM Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> wrote: > > Hi Felix, > > > > it appears to simply encode the currently unhelpful distinction between > > > "wild-guess", "possible" and "certain" in a new and relatively unfamiliar > > > way with a slightly ambiguous name. > > > > I think this is a case of miscommunication. > […] > > Any references to certainty or its values, "wild-guess", "possible" > > and "certain", are gone. The table you quote is being removed. > > Ah... very glad to hear we're on the same page here. I think I was > misled by the quoting of the table as it appeared to imply that > "certainty" or something similar would be retained, when that is not > what is being proposed here. > > Regarding the name of this new combined field, we should never forget > that is not only graphical applications that have a "user interface" — > even command-line utilities have one, but it is merely encoded in > ASCII form. Interface design is a long-established field and has > various hard-won best practices and conventions, more easily noticed > in GUI programs with regard to visual design, but an oft-neglected and > extremely important component of a good interface concerns itself with > the terminology used. For example, words should not surprise or > confuse the user, and indeed should be as entirely seamless and > unnoticable as possible. "Don't make me think", the saying goes. > Another way of putting this is that if the user even consciously has > to consider the word, it is ipso facto not a good word. > > I mention this because I believe "visibility" would not be serving our > users best. There are examples where a technically-correct name like > this, even if backed up by a well-meaning dictionary definition might > very well fit the idea better but we must have some empathy for the > casual and regular users of Lintian (a very old project, remember!) > who will be expecting the term "severity", even though that may not > 100% fit the idea of this new tag (eg. not quite matching the BTS or > whatever). In other words, if any user of Lintian now thinks questions > like "where did severities go? what is visibility? how does it > differ?" then we are not doing our job to the best of our ability. > > Anyway, unless I'm misunderstanding something again, I would very much > suggest we repurpose "severity" here instead of inventing a new term. > > > Regards, > > -- > ,''`. > : :' : Chris Lamb > `. `'` la...@debian.org chris-lamb.co.uk > `-
