On Donnerstag 10 Januar 2008, Uwe Stöhr wrote: > Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb: > > No, when the line is numbered I see > > [X] Number this line > > which is pretty clear. > > I still don't get it: When the formula is already numbered I see a > checkmark indeed, but the menu name still states that the menu will number > the formula.
No; you see that the menu item is checked, so you see that the corresponding setting is enabled. I wanted to post the authoritative KDE styleguide answer to this, but I cannot find any long discussion of this topic anymore (I know this came up from time to time). The best I found is this: http://wiki.openusability.org/guidelines/index.php/Guidelines:Menu_Items says: > Use verbs or verb phrases for commands, and adjectives or adjective phrases > for settings. IIRC this frequently came up for the show/hide menu/tool/statusbar actions; should the caption change between "show menubar" and "hide menubar"? Note that if a checkbox is used, this feels strange: [ ] show menubar [x] hide menubar Although the captions properly describes what happens, it looks as if the menubar was hidden. This is because the concepts of settings/options and commands has been mixed up. IIUC, Gnome also thinks that this is wrong: http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/menus-design.html says: > Do not use mutable menu items to toggle a two-state setting (for example, > Show Toolbar and Hide Toolbar). Present such items as a single check box > item instead. The screenshot simply says "[x] Toolbar", which would translate to "Line Numbering" in this discussion. OTOH, it has been pointed out by JMarc that this can be misunderstood, so maybe it should be [x] Numbered Formula Line But isn't the context clear by the menu this entry is in? I think I would prefer "Line Numbering" (or "Line Numbered" / "Numbered Line"). Ciao, / / .o. /--/ ..o / / ANS ooo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
