Agree. Ultimately, when cut and printed, a piece is one of the resultant bits of paper. The first time the system knows about the piece is when you select nodes in the drawing to create what is currently called a “detail”
I like “Draw mode”, I also like “Draft mode”, and I agree with @yannlossouarn’s arguments in favour of “Draft”. I think “Draft” is better than “Sketch”, the latter, to me, implies something imprecise. @bamba’s suggestion of “Block” is also good and perhaps best (it assumes some pattern making knowledge). When you create a new pattern you are currently prompted to enter the name of the first “Pattern piece”. This is an immediate source of confusion. The first drawing could be automatically named “Drawing 1”. In some cases this will be sufficient. The initial prompt, if still shown, could capture the “Pattern name” and could populate this into the appropriate area.
I don’t think a “Draft piece” exists per se. You do some drawing and then select some nodes to create a “Piece”, but the piece is first visible in “detail” mode. In drawing mode (unless I’m mistaken) you cannot see the Pieces (though having a way of highlighting the items in the drawing corresponding to a piece would be great)
Calling the .VAL file the Valentina Pattern File is absolutely fine. It is the electronic format of the pattern that you can print out to create a paper pattern (using the print layout tool).
“Detail mode” is okay. it is after all where we add all the details to the pieces. I think the pieces are “Pattern pieces” or just “Pieces”. After doing work in the detailed mode they are more refined pattern pieces. Whether they are currently included in a layout doesn’t affect whether they are “pattern pieces”. If they weren’t intended for any layout then they wouldn’t have been created (or am I missing something?). (The only time I’ve excluded pieces from a layout as if I’ve made a correction and want to reprint a subset.)
Layout for me is intuitive but taking @bamba’s comment above into account it would be even better if you could switch between printing layout and cutting layout. Until cutting layout is implemented the naming just needs to be clear that this is printing layout.
That said, for me this doesn’t feel like a ‘mode’. It is simply a task “Print layout tool” that forms part of exporting the completed pattern either directly to print, or to an intermediate representation (PDF/SVG). ‘Valentina pattern file’ should remain the term for the .VAL (i.e. the pattern in editable format). Once output to PDF/SVG via the layout tool it is no longer a Valentina Pattern File, it is simply a PDF or SVG file of a pattern that was created in Valentina.
I’ll take back my suggestion of variable, as @Stinde pointed out, the term parameter is much better.
I agree. Changing the terminology should be planned and only started once there is a consensus. It should then be done in one hit and timed with a version number change. We need a mapping of old to new terminology with the glossary providing a clear meaning. Then it becomes easier to recognise whether a document / wiki etc. is out of date and a relatively mechanical job of updating it. This means that @Grace etc. should not be discouraged from authoring things based on the current terms.
As @Olgatron points out, you can self-learn Valentina in a relatively short time frame. I do remember though a small number of jarring moments as I was trying to intuit my way around, the majority of the UI is very usable. Just to be clear, I think Valentina is great and it is clearly the result of a lot of great work. I think this just makes it more of a good idea to address the relatively easy aspect of terminology. I don’t think we need to change the workflow, just the terminology.