The name "Status View"...

[zer0]

Well, for what it's worth, I *was* talking about American English. That being said, the Chicago Manual of Style is used as an authoritative reference for authors, editors, proofreaders, indexers, copywriters, designers, and publishers.

I think that makes it authoritative enough.

Authoritative, but not definitive. Also, as you pointed out, it is for American English. There are differences, often considerable ones, between American English and British English and what may be considered a norm in the former may not always agree in the latter.

This is a poor approach - anyone designing anything for others has to take into account how it will be perceived by them. That's the *nature* of designing an interface to be used by other users.

Yes, but you are not designing XYplorer and neither am I. You have your own idea how it will be perceived and I have my thoughts. While it allows us to bicker about how it will be perceived by other users, it does not qualify either of us as definitive voices of the overall user base.

If you designed an app to be only understandable by experienced and proficient power users, you would be hardpressed to ever get any new users.

I don't agree. Every application has a certain target audience and each application's developer(s) must set a de facto pre-requisite level of knowledge and skill that is expected.

I'm not talking about catering to the lowest common demoninator - I'm saying that where possible, clear and plain English is preferable to unnecessarily cryptic references.

I do not think that XYcopy is cryptic at all. "osieuifibdsrhb" is what one may call cryptic, because it is completely incomprehensible. OTOH, XYcopy features "XY" as in "XYplorer" and "copy" as in "copying". Neither XYplorer nor copying are cryptic -- I hope -- so why is their portmanteau cryptic all of a sudden?

That entry does not take into account:

1. Acronyms where the absence of an apostrophe has the potential to be confusing.
2. Situations where there is clearly no possessive meaning.

What is confusing to one man can be crystal clear to another. English language isn't there to ponder to people's subjective feelings. It has a set of standards that must be adhered to. As for the possessive meaning, that entry states that an apostrophe is used to indicate possession. If no possession is meant then don't use an apostrophe. I can't be clearer than that.

In regards to "File Operations Status", the "Status" does not belong to "File Operations". Rather, "File Operations" is being used as a modifier to describe the type of "Status". This is similar to "Department of Veterans Affairs", where "Affairs" does not belong to "Veterans". Rather, "Veterans" is being used as a modifier to describe the type of "Affairs".

This confuses me as earlier you said that

It is the "Status" of "File Operations".

So, if it is the status of file operations, how can it not belong to them?

I also asked about this specific issue on a forum of English teachers. One of them gave the following reply:

-------------------------------------------------

You don't need an apostrophe; in fact, I think it would be wrong.
You are not referring to the status of each file operation ('file operation's status'), nor are you referring to status of several file operations (file operations' status).
You are referring to the overall status of some function you've labelled as "file operations".

Consider the following:
"What is your job status?" This is OK, but some people have a few jobs, so "What is your jobs status?".
The question is not asking about the status of any job. It's asking about the status of one aspect of your life, labelled "jobs". Basically it means "Do you have a job? etc.", not "Do you have a rewarding, well-paying job?" - ie. the status of the job/s.

In any case, I think you (or your colleagues) [are] being confused by the "s" on operations. The same argument should apply to singular nouns. But you say "What is the "free memory status" of your computer at the moment, not "What is the "free memory's status".
You say "What is the battery status?", not "What is the battery's status". You could say the latter, but it's not necessary.

Since there's no need to use a possessive on these singular concepts, there should be no need for it just because you have labelled a concept as being plural. It's a red herring.

-------------------------------------------------

While it is possible for teachers to be wrong, I think it qualifies as a worthy authority to consider. And this teacher explained the issue rather well, I think.

Once again, it could be a question of dialect -- do you know as to that teacher's locale? I was educated in the British English language system, so this is the way I was taught. I am not going to make assumptions as to that person's authority, but there seems to be a lot of terms like "think", "say", "need" and "necessary" in that quote, which smell of being subjective and colloquial.

It is a poor design choice to use a menu label that is unnecessarily cryptic, with the sole justification being that if you hunt for it, you'll find it. Clear and plain English is always preferable. Anyone generally familiar with computers will understand "File Operations", "Background Processing", or "Background Tasks". *No one* new to XY is going to know what XYcopy is, even if they are generally knowledgeable in computers.

I have dealt with the cryptology of XYcopy above so I shall not regurgitate that here. And at the risk of repeating myself -- there is a learning curve with every new application, that's why a trial is a great opportunity to use and research its features.

And why should there be this requirement that a person, who is brand-new to XYplorer must instantly comprehend the meaning of each and every term that is present in XYplorer? Do people generally familiar with computers know what hard links are? UNC paths? Regular expressions? Catalog? UTF-8 encoded strings? Hex dump of a string? An MD5 hash? [Clue: all of those are terms present in XYplorer] If they don't, then -- according to you -- those terms need to be converted to clear and plain English. If they do then they will have no problem comprehending what XYcopy is.

[admin]

for what it's worth: One more vote for "Background Jobs". That's plain and easy.

Thank you. I wish all posts here would be that clear and concise.

[Mesh]

Well, for what it's worth, I *was* talking about American English. That being said, the Chicago Manual of Style is used as an authoritative reference for authors, editors, proofreaders, indexers, copywriters, designers, and publishers.

I think that makes it authoritative enough.

Authoritative, but not definitive.

You'll find that in this area, and for this language, definitive rules without exceptions are harder to come by than one might expect.

Also, as you pointed out, it is for American English. There are differences, often considerable ones, between American English and British English and what may be considered a norm in the former may not always agree in the latter.

I agree with you in regards to difference between American and British English. And I will state that I am making my points in the context of American English.

This is a poor approach - anyone designing anything for others has to take into account how it will be perceived by them. That's the *nature* of designing an interface to be used by other users.

Yes, but you are not designing XYplorer and neither am I.

Incorrect. When we make suggestions to change the UI, we are trying to improve the design of the interface. That means that if we're going to do so responsibly, we must take into account how it will be viewed by others - and not just how it would be perceived by us.

If you don't agree, that is completely your prerogative. But in my opinion, trying to take into account other users when making our suggestions is the courteous, considerate, and responsible thing to do.

If you designed an app to be only understandable by experienced and proficient power users, you would be hardpressed to ever get any new users.

I don't agree. Every application has a certain target audience and each application's developer(s) must set a de facto pre-requisite level of knowledge and skill that is expected.

XY is not intended for only a tiny subset of extreme power users. It's intended for anyone who has the need or who would appreciate a file manager with greater power and flexibility than Explorer. It's not like a programming tool where the only users who would ever be interested in it are programmers to start with.

Therefore, it makes sense to design it to be clear to the average user - not just those people who are likely to read through the entire help file, the version history since 1.0, and all forum posts from the last six months.

I do not think that XYcopy is cryptic at all. "osieuifibdsrhb" is what one may call cryptic, because it is completely incomprehensible. OTOH, XYcopy features "XY" as in "XYplorer" and "copy" as in "copying". Neither XYplorer nor copying are cryptic -- I hope -- so why is their portmanteau cryptic all of a sudden?

As I explained earlier, when you're talking about a function/module name, it's not always clear what it does as the name itself is often misleading. My example of the "DestroyPhysicalMonitor" function being a perfect example of that.

And also as I explained earlier, why use a function/module name where there is a plain English alternative? That makes things unnecessarily complicated.

That entry does not take into account:

1. Acronyms where the absence of an apostrophe has the potential to be confusing.
2. Situations where there is clearly no possessive meaning.

What is confusing to one man can be crystal clear to another. English language isn't there to ponder to people's subjective feelings. It has a set of standards that must be adhered to. As for the possessive meaning, that entry states that an apostrophe is used to indicate possession. If no possession is meant then don't use an apostrophe. I can't be clearer than that.

Thank you for proving my original point.

"File Operations Status" does not imply possession, therefore, I did not use an apostrophe. By your own words, this is correct as it stands.


As for the secondary issue regarding acronyms, that deals with plurality rather than possession, so that's a different subtopic.

In regards to "File Operations Status", the "Status" does not belong to "File Operations". Rather, "File Operations" is being used as a modifier to describe the type of "Status". This is similar to "Department of Veterans Affairs", where "Affairs" does not belong to "Veterans". Rather, "Veterans" is being used as a modifier to describe the type of "Affairs".

This confuses me as earlier you said that

It is the "Status" of "File Operations".

So, if it is the status of file operations, how can it not belong to them?

We're not referring to a specific file operation, or a specific set of file operations - but rather, the concept of file operations in general. Therefore, it is not possessive.

If we were talking about a specific item, we would be talking about "the file operation's status". If we were talking about a specific group of items, we would be talking about "the file operations' status". But neither applies here. Here, we're using the general concept of "file operations" to indicate the *type* of "status". It's not possessive.

Once again, it could be a question of dialect -- do you know as to that teacher's locale? I was educated in the British English language system, so this is the way I was taught. I am not going to make assumptions as to that person's authority, but there seems to be a lot of terms like "think", "say", "need" and "necessary" in that quote, which smell of being subjective and colloquial.

They're listed as being in Australia.

That being said, your inference of subjectiveness aside, I think they made a rather clear argument in favor of why an apostrophe would not be correct in that instance. I note that you didn't state anything specific in their statement that you disagree with.

It is a poor design choice to use a menu label that is unnecessarily cryptic, with the sole justification being that if you hunt for it, you'll find it. Clear and plain English is always preferable. Anyone generally familiar with computers will understand "File Operations", "Background Processing", or "Background Tasks". *No one* new to XY is going to know what XYcopy is, even if they are generally knowledgeable in computers.

I have dealt with the cryptology of XYcopy above so I shall not regurgitate that here. And at the risk of repeating myself -- there is a learning curve with every new application, that's why a trial is a great opportunity to use and research its features.

And why should there be this requirement that a person, who is brand-new to XYplorer must instantly comprehend the meaning of each and every term that is present in XYplorer? Do people generally familiar with computers know what hard links are? UNC paths? Regular expressions? Catalog? UTF-8 encoded strings? Hex dump of a string? An MD5 hash? [Clue: all of those are terms present in XYplorer] If they don't, then -- according to you -- those terms need to be converted to clear and plain English. If they do then they will have no problem comprehending what XYcopy is.

You continue to misunderstand me. Once again, I am not saying that new users to XY "must instantly comprehend the meaning of each and every term that is present in XYplorer". I am saying that where there is a clear plain English *alternative*, that is what should be used, so as to not make the UI **unnecessarily** complex. If you can't understand this concept, then by all means, feel free to design an app using your stated philosophy. But you'd better have a day job.

[Mesh]

for what it's worth: One more vote for "Background Jobs". That's plain and easy.

Thank you. I wish all posts here would be that clear and concise.

Hey, my posts to you and most of the other users were short and to the point, and usually consisted of little more than "I'm fine with that".

[serendipity]

I am fine with Background Jobs/Tasks too.

[RalphM]

for what it's worth: One more vote for "Background Jobs". That's plain and easy.

Thank you. I wish all posts here would be that clear and concise.

Hey, my posts to you and most of the other users were short and to the point, and usually consisted of little more than "I'm fine with that".

That's how we ended up with five pages of forum entries about a single caption.
Well that's what the discussion was still about, when I stopped reading the posts exceeding five lines...

I cast my vote for "Background Jobs" too.

[arirish]

Incorrect. When indicating the plural of acronyms, the apostrophe is optional.

I didn't realise there is such a punctuation rule -- optional apostrophes. I even had to Google that one and alas there isn't one. Thus, sir, you are mistaken -- apostrophes in plural acronyms are plain wrong.

Really? Let's have a look, shall we?

------------------------------
Chicago Manual of Style: [...]

Oh, if you were a woman I could kiss you.

[Mesh]

Hey, my posts to you and most of the other users were short and to the point, and usually consisted of little more than "I'm fine with that".

That's how we ended up with five pages of forum entries about a single caption.
Well that's what the discussion was still about, when I stopped reading the posts exceeding five lines...

I guess you missed the part where I said "and most of the other users". It was right there, clear as day.

[Mesh]

Oh, if you were a woman I could kiss you.

I'll take that as a compliment.

[arirish]

Oh, if you were a woman I could kiss you.

I'll take that as a compliment.

Incidentally, as a British English subject studying for my MA in English, I completely agree with your side of the argument on the apostrophe. In fact, I'd never have considered the situation in question to require an apostrophe, for all the reasons your English teacher cohort already so eloquently listed.

[Minimax]

This is ridiculous. By hindsight it would have been better to make a poll out of this awkward debate.

By the way "Background Jobs" sounds very good to me.

[RalphM]

Hey, my posts to you and most of the other users were short and to the point, and usually consisted of little more than "I'm fine with that".

No, I didn't miss that part (less than five lines in that post) and I agree - as opposed to the first part of the sentence.

[zer0]

I agree with you in regards to difference between American and British English. And I will state that I am making my points in the context of American English.

Then we will never agree on this as I am speaking from the British English frame of reference.

Incorrect. When we make suggestions to change the UI, we are trying to improve the design of the interface. That means that if we're going to do so responsibly, we must take into account how it will be viewed by others - and not just how it would be perceived by us.

If you don't agree, that is completely your prerogative. But in my opinion, trying to take into account other users when making our suggestions is the courteous, considerate, and responsible thing to do.

I also have other users' interests in my mind. That is why I have put forward a distinctive name for a feature that relates -- both linguistically and functionally -- to XYplorer.

XY is not intended for only a tiny subset of extreme power users. It's intended for anyone who has the need or who would appreciate a file manager with greater power and flexibility than Explorer. It's not like a programming tool where the only users who would ever be interested in it are programmers to start with.

Therefore, it makes sense to design it to be clear to the average user - not just those people who are likely to read through the entire help file, the version history since 1.0, and all forum posts from the last six months.

I didn't say that it is intended for a tiny subset of extreme power users -- your interpretation of my words is incorrect. Nor did I state that it is an absolute requirement that people read through entire help file, version history and the forum posts. What I did state was that those are potential places where people may find assistance in case they have a query regarding a feature.

As I explained earlier, when you're talking about a function/module name, it's not always clear what it does as the name itself is often misleading. My example of the "DestroyPhysicalMonitor" function being a perfect example of that.

And also as I explained earlier, why use a function/module name where there is a plain English alternative? That makes things unnecessarily complicated.

"Background Jobs" is not misleading? Where is the explanation of what jobs it is referring to? Where is the clarification that not all file jobs will be shown in that dialogue window? How about the fact that those jobs can be foregrounded as well? "XYcopy Jobs" is not misleading. People new to XYplorer may not know instantly what it means, but that's the case with a lot of XYplorer's features.

And there is nothing wrong with referring to a specific application that performs a particular function in conjunction with XYplorer. There is a reason why Don called it "XYcopy.exe". He didn't call it "File Transfer Agent.exe" or "This program does copy and move and delete operations if you enable it in Configuration.exe", did he?

We're not referring to a specific file operation, or a specific set of file operations - but rather, the concept of file operations in general. Therefore, it is not possessive.

If we were talking about a specific item, we would be talking about "the file operation's status". If we were talking about a specific group of items, we would be talking about "the file operations' status". But neither applies here. Here, we're using the general concept of "file operations" to indicate the *type* of "status". It's not possessive.

What you are talking about is some vague and general concept of file operations. Yet what that dialogue window shows is either a specific operation or a specific set of operations -- depending on how many are displayed. Thus, said dialogue window brings said operation(s) under its "hood", so it is possessive. That dialogue window possesses information about those operations.

They're listed as being in Australia.

That being said, your inference of subjectiveness aside, I think they made a rather clear argument in favor of why an apostrophe would not be correct in that instance. I note that you didn't state anything specific in their statement that you disagree with.

I took a liberty of asking someone I know on a personal basis and who happens to be a certified proofreader [in British English] and has proofread a considerable number of publications in his 62 year life. Here is his response:

...I think I understand what you mean about these things. I get fed up seeing "CD's" or "video's". Just look at it this way - if you spelled it out, would there be an apostrophe? Like 'compact disc's' ??? I think not. Or QUANGO's! Or DVD's!! Even worse! Ah well, back to my supper of sausage's and tomatoe's and potato's.

You continue to misunderstand me. Once again, I am not saying that new users to XY "must instantly comprehend the meaning of each and every term that is present in XYplorer". I am saying that where there is a clear plain English *alternative*, that is what should be used, so as to not make the UI **unnecessarily** complex. If you can't understand this concept, then by all means, feel free to design an app using your stated philosophy. But you'd better have a day job.

User interface won't suffer one little bit if it is to be called "XYcopy Jobs". It's just a text label. And if you REALLY feel that XYplorer's UI shouldn't be unnecessarily complex you should check out my other thread regarding its shortcomings.

And last, but not least -- XYcopy is mentioned in the GUI after all! Go to Configuration -> File Operations. Below "Queue file operations", what does it say? Yes, it says "Copy handler: XYcopy.exe...". I'd say that absolute fact that you claimed it to be is not so absolute any more!

[Mesh]

No, I didn't miss that part (less than five lines in that post) and I agree - as opposed to the first part of the sentence.

Okay, gotcha!

[Mesh]

Incidentally, as a British English subject studying for my MA in English, I completely agree with your side of the argument on the apostrophe. In fact, I'd never have considered the situation in question to require an apostrophe, for all the reasons your English teacher cohort already so eloquently listed.

Thank you, it's helpful to get an opinion from someone else proficient in British English. That was one area I was unable to comment on.