RE: Help describing fields.

Subject: RE: Help describing fields.
From: "Locke, David" <dlocke -at- bindview -dot- com>
To: TECHWR-L <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 8 Mar 2000 14:21:17 -0600

> But the description of some of the fields is quite obvious

Yes fields can have obvious fields like Name. But, if you take the time to
add the context information you can add value to obvious things. In our
systems, fields are used in queries. Name can be the name of the object, the
parent, the child, the referent, the collection, or the trustees. It needs
to be more obvious.

You have run into the same situations with dialogs. They can appear obvious
as well. But, here again, considering the context of that dialog means that
there should be a chain of links relating to how the dialog was opened, what
relationships it may have with other dialogs in the UI, what views in the
user's conceptual model the dialog is related to, and what objects in the
user's conceptual model are related to those views.

The term for obvious around here is "User Boy." I really can't stand that
term. And, it is the TWs that run around using it as an excuse not to
contextualize their content.

Even if the node is obvious, the links, associations, and relationships are

David W. Locke

Previous by Author: RE: Readability: Robin Williams' take
Next by Author: RE: Good Manuals - Why Rare.
Previous by Thread: RE: Help describing fields.
Next by Thread: Re: HUMOR: Old thread, hopefully new spin on "disembowel" vs. "Betty Grable"

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads