Last modified: 2011-03-13 18:05:15 UTC
I need to use text "(last)" for another purpose. Because it will influence a
lot, I invested into a thorough argumentation and indicate a highest priority to
trigger broad discussion at the soonest.
At the moment, it indicates the difference view between the revision in that
line n (in Recent changes, watchlist and page history views) to the preceding
version to that line n (thus diff between "n" and "n-1").
Because any other texts I have tried are misleading (lvrd = last visited revsion
diff is too complicated and not intuitive), I suggest the following two changes
which makes sense - Brion, please think over this _thoroughly_ before simply
In recent changes pages
(diff) (hist) --> (prev) (hist)
in page history pages:
(cur) (last) --> (cur) (prev)
(prev) is the new suggested name of the link to the difference view between that
revision line n and the previous revision n-1
(last) is the new link introduced within ENotif  to the difference view
between that revision line n and the last seen revision m (individual for any
watching user; only for watched pages)
create an LVR REPOSITORY for last-visited revisions until they are visited
Assign lasting ID to latest revision of articles
(typo corr in title)
Changing UI in this way is confusing for users.
Can't you use (prev) for "difference to my previously seen revision)", or use a
more verbose link for this?
(In reply to comment #2)
> JeLuF wrote: Changing UI in this way is confusing for users.
> Can't you use (prev) for "difference to my previously seen revision)", or use a
> more verbose link for this?
can you please consider to study this argumentation ? I refrain from reopening
the bugzilla in order not to start a "bugzilla war" - this isn't my intention.
I have tried about 10 variations, such as (lvrd) (last visited revision
difference), but it gives a broken screen layout.
Now. I am using
"(prev) (last) (hist) pagename"
Here again my argumentation for changing text of existing "(last)" links to
1. The existing text on Page Hsitory pages says
"Legend: (cur) = difference with current version, (last) = difference with
__preceding__ version, M = minor edit"
==> This "(last)" is totally misleading and is suggested to be changed to
"(prev)" or "(prec)", which explains better, that the previous version is
"(last)" will then be free to be used for the "link to the difference to the
last seen revision"
2. On recent changes pages - non-enhanced-view- , we have at the moment
(last) (diff) pagename
The linkname "(last)" can be replace with "(prev)" or "(prec)", same
argumentation as above.
"(prev) Previous" or "(prec) preceding" explains much better, what difference is
I fully understand your objections w.r.t. UI changes, but in this respect it
appears that you keep on sticking to wrong labels.
Once "(last)" is replaced here, I need it for denoting the the new
(last) = show difference between this revision and the last revision I saw
This UI change ***is*** implemented in my ENotif3.05 for Mediawiki REL1_4 as
ppublished in http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454 and
http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif (see this for download URL)
added to title "using tooltips" on (diff) (last) (prev) (hist) labels.
Already implemented in http://bugzilla.wikipedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=454 ENotif v3.x
As not everyone like tooltips, I need another user option to disable them.
Don't change the meaning of a label. It's confusing to users, no matter how good
your arguments are.
Users are used to these labels.
"Der Mensch ist ein Gewohnheitstier". German proverb.
(In reply to comment #5)
> Don't change the meaning of a label. It's confusing to users .. Users are used
to these labels.
I see, but another proverbs says
"Das Bessere ist der Feind des Guten" and as Prof. Milberg (BMW, TU Berlin u.a.)
"Die Zukunft kommt von alleine. Der Fortschritt _nicht_."
How about a label like "New" or "Missed" or "Unseen"? I'm not sure how important
it is to maintain a 4-letter label. How well is this sort of parallelism
maintained in other languages?
Whether or not "(last)" is a good label for what it currently does, 'reusing it'
for a completely different meaning is just going to lead to mass confusion. If
it needs changing, change it, but don't immediately use the old label with a new
I suggest "(seen)" - neatly four letters like the others, and sums up far better
than "last" what you are comparing with: the version you've seen.
My dear friends, thank you for your comments.
The "(seen)" idea is good, but I need something for the inverse.
"(nys)" not yet seen is cryptic
"(new)" is already marked with the beamy updated marker; "new" can also mean a
"new page" and isn't unambiguous.
After studying your proposals, the problem is, that you do not (yet) really
understand. To make it easier, it prepared (very quickly) a first commented
screenshot. Please be kind to me and do not flood me now with "this is weird"
comments - what I suggest here is something what I already use and what runs
smoothly, but which is new for the mass (here).
Please, may I kindly invite you to have a look to the commented screenshot in
where I prepared a comprehensive example ?
(In reply to comment #9)
> The "(seen)" idea is good, but I need something for the inverse.
Forgive me if I'm being thick, but how is it "the inverse?" From what I
understand, this is a link which, when clicked, shows a diff between a specific
version (which may or may not be the current version) and the most recent
version that the user has seen. So "last", in your current code, is presumably
short for "last seen"; I would suggest that this is confusing, because "last"
also means "previous" [a bug in the English language, if you like],
notwithstanding the fact that people are used to what it means in this same
context at the moment. So, I suggest "seen", also short for "last seen", but
I can only presume you are thinking that this diff shows "the changes you
haven't seen", but I am mystified as to how "last" could be short for that. Note
that there are already links labelled "cur", which do not link to the current
revision, but to a *diff against* the current revision; similarly, "seen" would
link to a *diff against* the seen revision. It makes perfect sense to me, but if
you think this is too confusing, how about being more explicit and saying "to
cur" and "to seen"? Personally, I think as soon as somebody clicks one, they'll
notice it's a diff and not a page, and get the idea, but I tend to see things
like that with a very "systems" eye.
Generally, it may be that the labels as they stand aren't perfect; but changing
them *will* confuse users, and the replacements need to be thought through
carefully; and "reusing" one of the old labels, when it isn't the perfect choice
for the new link either, seems to be guaranteed to make things worse, not better.
[Oh, and I really don't see the need to let people turn off tooltips; if they
don't want to see them, they can rest their mouse somewhere else on the page :)]
Hm, I must be tired, this reads as a bit cranky. I am trying to be helpful, not
just argumentative, honest! :-/
I agree to Rowan's recent proposal to use "(last seen)" for it.
Thus the proposed links on Recent Changes pages are
(diff) (last seen) (hist)
and all existing links keep their names and function.
First screenshot from my personal CVS HEAD checkout:
- this screenshot is also available on http://meta.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enotif
*implemented* in ENotif/EConfirm v3.16, see