[quote=“dismine, post:17, topic:1602, full:true”]
One question. Did you before proposing this count how much effort it will take to redesign and who will do this?[/quote]
Gosh, no: I know this would be a significant amount of work. I always work with developers, and have sometimes developed, so I am plainly conscious of the amount of work that is implied by the least change. I also know the kind of suggestion I made exceeds by far my current karma in the project. And, except in case of a brilliant success in becoming a contributor, I may never get karma enough, neither (which is the real problem) become skilled enough in Qt/C++/Valentina guts to make it by myself. This is a characteristic of open-source governance: it is often a do-ocracy, where decisions are made by those who make the implementation. It is not comfortable for people who cannot develop, but I can understand that you are reluctant to spending time on changes that seem arbitrary. I just can’t imagine how much time you already spent on developing Valentina, so be sure I sincerely understand you.
Beside of this, I will try to contribute in a useful manner. For now, I can try to increase my development skills, pick some issues, and make a few pull requests (this is my personal challenge !). The other way I can contribute is by using my existing skills to improve the UI. The goal would be to increase/ease user adoption of Valentina, but I do not know whether growing the user community is a priority, or if your goal is to make a tool you can use for your personal purpose. The problem is that I feel it is not so easy to use for newcomers without significant investment and prealable experience with software. About user cases showing that something is wrong, it is difficult to prove a usability painpoint in an open-source context: my job usually implies organizing usability testing, with users trying to solve a scenario and me observing their problems, counting how much time it takes, etc. This way, you get concrete proofs of usability problems. But it seems out of reach in our context, so the other way is to build trust, so I can explain why I feel there is a problem from a usability point of view and try to convince you (and any other people that have karma enough to weigh on design decisions). Do you feel comfortable with such an approach?
So, coming back to wording issues:
What is the goal?
Ensuring names are consistent with underlying concepts, so that users that read a name in the UI immediately start building a good mental representation of the way Valentina works.
Where is problem? What is wrong? Where is user cases that show that something is wrong?
- Several terms are used for same concept: “Detail/Workpiece/Pattern piece” and “Seam allowance tool” do relate to same concept. This can lead to confusing users.
- There is an implicit workflow (make a draft -> define workpiece using the draft elements) that is strongly enforced by the tool (not possible to go to Details mode as long as no workpiece has been defined using Seam allowance tool), but absolutely no clue is given about how to proceed, in the tool.
Independently from the changes that would be needed to solve this, did I succeed in explaining the nature of the problem, and do you agree it can be considered as a problem to solve? If so, I can try to find ways to solve the problem without needing too much work? Or sticking with changes that I am able to do if you do not want to spend time on this. Up to you!