https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=166723
--- Comment #39 from Eyal Rozenberg <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Lars Jødal from comment #38) > Fine with me, if we can find one. I am all for finding a wording that > satisfies: > * The wording is understandable to the typical user (i.e., the user will > understand what the feature does, not be confused or misunderstand). > * It is naturally connected to the existing Reject/Accept features. > * There is overall agreement among those who comment here. > > My best shot has been "Reject but track", but it fails at least on the last > point. Who has a better suggestion? That fails all three of your criteria, because: * This will not allow users to understand what the feature does (as - that is just not what it does), and will certainly confuse them, as * It conflicts with the semantics of the Reject and Accept features, so its connection to them is unnatural. * There is staunch resistance to it. Suggestions from my first group, e.g. "Accept & Track Reversion", "Accept & Suggest Reversion" meet the second criterion; don't meet the third criterion; and I believe they also meet the first criterion, but I suppose others might not think so. I doubt we will be able to find something that meets the first criterion fully, since it is easy to mis-characterize or confuse this feature. I would rather we relax it from "understndable" to "hard to misunderstand". If we do that, I believe that the more 'neutral' set of suggestions, the one without the words Accept nor Reject, could meet all three criteria if we show some flexibility. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
