[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: send-invisible is not an obvious name

From: Francesco Potorti`
Subject: Re: send-invisible is not an obvious name
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 09:09:57 +0200

> > I had to enter my password and since I knew that a command
> > existed to do that I tried to gess its name, to no avail.  I had to do a
> > search for `password' in the manual to find it.
> I'd say that's what you're supposed to do, and if you could find it by
> searching the manual, then things are working properly.  We can't encode
> documentation into all function names!

I was not clear.  I had to look in the manual and to a M-s password RET,
which is not the normal way, and found obviously many instances of the
word before finding what I was looking for.

Okay, this may be a shortcoming of the manual, and indexing
send-invisible properly would correct the problem.

What I meant is that it is not reasonable that a user should look in the
manual for such a basic functionality.  It should be immediate and

[about a mneu entry]
> That would be reasonable; however I think `Send input invisibly' (or
> `without echoing') is a pretty good title for this menu entry...

Tha would do.  But it makes no sense to a user.  It only makes sense to
a programmer.  The user only wants to write invisibly when entering a
password, and that is what he is looking for.  A programmer knows that
this is only an instance of a wider range of possibilities, but as for
the practical usage, that function is in fact made for passwords, so the
generalization in the name is only theoretical.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]