"Parenthetical Pluralization"
-
As the subject line says - not something I came up with, but I like it. I stole it from [this](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/50885/parenthetical-pluralization-of-words-ending-in-y) discussion when researching the topic. In any case. Not a programming question. I like to label my fields, listboxes, etc so if the user is only allowed to make a single selection, the label is singular. If the user is allowed multiple selections (including just one), I like to indicate it as such by using a label such as "Widget(s)" (as opposed to "Widgets"). Maybe I'm thinking like a developer (or so I'm told), but to me the parens make it clear making multiple choices is possible, but still just an option. One of my coworkers hates this. Or to use the example from the discussion at the link above, something like "Party(ies)". What's your preference? Or has your company adopted something formal? I'm thinking this might be a good survey question.
In Stock, On order, Invoice Items ... are more instructive. "Widget" is a "type of" field and maybe shouldn't even be a "label". Depends on the context.
"Before entering on an understanding, I have meditated for a long time, and have foreseen what might happen. It is not genius which reveals to me suddenly, secretly, what I have to say or to do in a circumstance unexpected by other people; it is reflection, it is meditation." - Napoleon I
-
As the subject line says - not something I came up with, but I like it. I stole it from [this](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/50885/parenthetical-pluralization-of-words-ending-in-y) discussion when researching the topic. In any case. Not a programming question. I like to label my fields, listboxes, etc so if the user is only allowed to make a single selection, the label is singular. If the user is allowed multiple selections (including just one), I like to indicate it as such by using a label such as "Widget(s)" (as opposed to "Widgets"). Maybe I'm thinking like a developer (or so I'm told), but to me the parens make it clear making multiple choices is possible, but still just an option. One of my coworkers hates this. Or to use the example from the discussion at the link above, something like "Party(ies)". What's your preference? Or has your company adopted something formal? I'm thinking this might be a good survey question.
dandy72 wrote:
I like to label my fields, listboxes...One of my coworkers hates this...What's your preference? Or has your company adopted something formal?
My preference is that people would recognize that a UI should be written with the user of the UI in mind and not the developer. That said of course for any UI that is actually going to get used substantially the user is not going to care about small oddities in how the boxes are labeled. After just a short while they will intuitively know what each box is without reading anything at all. What they do care about is that the UI and the rest of the application actually works. So might be better to focus on that.
-
I think he's using it in the UI, not the code...
Telegraph marker posts ... nothing to do with IT Phasmid email discussion group ... also nothing to do with IT Beekeeping and honey site ... still nothing to do with IT
-
PIEBALDconsult wrote:
In documentation sure, but only when it's a simple (s), (ies) is an abomination
You should see what they are doing here in Germany with the genders in texts... :doh: :doh: :doh: X| X| X|
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
You should see what they are doing here in Germany with the genders in texts...
That has crossed my mind. I'm French, and it's not uncommon to see those sorts of things in ordinary documents written in French, so maybe that's where I adopted the idea. My co-worker only speaks English; not being used to associate genders to nouns, I think, is the reason he sees this as being out of place.
-
Sorry, I don't like the parenthetical plural preferring instead plural sans-parentheses. :laugh: Anyway, thanks for the informal survey! We haven't had one in a while! :laugh: What really irks me is seeing something like '1 record(s) returned'. or worse '1 records returned'. C'mon, it only takes a few seconds to handle it correctly! :sigh:
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse "Hope is contagious"
-
Sorry, I don't like the parenthetical plural preferring instead plural sans-parentheses. :laugh: Anyway, thanks for the informal survey! We haven't had one in a while! :laugh: What really irks me is seeing something like '1 record(s) returned'. or worse '1 records returned'. C'mon, it only takes a few seconds to handle it correctly! :sigh:
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse "Hope is contagious"
kmoorevs wrote:
C'mon, it only takes a few seconds to handle it correctly!
At least one time I was told that for grammatically correct Chinese that numbers change based on something. Not necessarily gender but perhaps even/odd. So not so easy if one wants to internationalize it. And if one wanted to use the written form of the number, so 'one' rather than '1' then gender would definitely play a role in multiple languages.
-
Nelek wrote:
You should see what they are doing here in Germany with the genders in texts...
That has crossed my mind. I'm French, and it's not uncommon to see those sorts of things in ordinary documents written in French, so maybe that's where I adopted the idea. My co-worker only speaks English; not being used to associate genders to nouns, I think, is the reason he sees this as being out of place.
Are you trying to acomodate ALL gender forms in the same word? Example: Worker (m): Arbeiter Worker (f): Arbeiterin Workers (m): Arbeitern Workers (f): Arbeiterinnen Now you have to write: Arbeiter_innen, Arbeiter*innen, Arbeiter-innen... to be political correct. And you can not imagine how tiring it is to read a text full of that crap.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
Are you trying to acomodate ALL gender forms in the same word? Example: Worker (m): Arbeiter Worker (f): Arbeiterin Workers (m): Arbeitern Workers (f): Arbeiterinnen Now you have to write: Arbeiter_innen, Arbeiter*innen, Arbeiter-innen... to be political correct. And you can not imagine how tiring it is to read a text full of that crap.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
No, ultimately my UI is only targeting English, so gender is not an issue. In French, you Worker example would become: Travailleur(euse)(s) ...and I *have* seen such a thing in documentation. But still, I agree, if it went beyond just singular vs plural, I'd standardize on one thing only.
-
No, ultimately my UI is only targeting English, so gender is not an issue. In French, you Worker example would become: Travailleur(euse)(s) ...and I *have* seen such a thing in documentation. But still, I agree, if it went beyond just singular vs plural, I'd standardize on one thing only.
dandy72 wrote:
...and I have seen such a thing in documentation.
I have been told to correct my text with that X| X| X|
dandy72 wrote:
if it went beyond just singular vs plural, I'd standardize on one thing only.
I tried... like writing a "for the sick of easiness and clarity only the femenine plural (so you are not called sexist) will be used. The best is... I couldn't do it X| X| X| X| X| X|
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
As the subject line says - not something I came up with, but I like it. I stole it from [this](https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/50885/parenthetical-pluralization-of-words-ending-in-y) discussion when researching the topic. In any case. Not a programming question. I like to label my fields, listboxes, etc so if the user is only allowed to make a single selection, the label is singular. If the user is allowed multiple selections (including just one), I like to indicate it as such by using a label such as "Widget(s)" (as opposed to "Widgets"). Maybe I'm thinking like a developer (or so I'm told), but to me the parens make it clear making multiple choices is possible, but still just an option. One of my coworkers hates this. Or to use the example from the discussion at the link above, something like "Party(ies)". What's your preference? Or has your company adopted something formal? I'm thinking this might be a good survey question.
Maybe use regular expression suffixes? Widget must select 1 Widget+ must select 1 or more Widget* may select 0 or more Widget? may select 0 or 1 Every coder will agree. Suffix should be added automatically based on setter methods argument. 0 maps to nullable type or List. Widget -> setWidget(Widget w) Widget+ -> setWidget(List list) Widget* -> setWidget(List? list) Widget? -> setWidget(Widget? w) I would probably still pass an empty list to the * method over a null. Widget spelling is start to look really weird after typing it so many times! Good luck!
-
Maybe use regular expression suffixes? Widget must select 1 Widget+ must select 1 or more Widget* may select 0 or more Widget? may select 0 or 1 Every coder will agree. Suffix should be added automatically based on setter methods argument. 0 maps to nullable type or List. Widget -> setWidget(Widget w) Widget+ -> setWidget(List list) Widget* -> setWidget(List? list) Widget? -> setWidget(Widget? w) I would probably still pass an empty list to the * method over a null. Widget spelling is start to look really weird after typing it so many times! Good luck!
-
englebart wrote:
Maybe use regular expression suffixes?
I'm already being told I'm "thinking too much like a programmer" and that normal people get confused by that. I don't think regular expression suffixes would go over very well. :-)