Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

doc: use "previous"/"preceding" instead of "above" as modifier #34877

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 25, 2020

Conversation

Trott
Copy link
Member

@Trott Trott commented Aug 22, 2020

Refs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/a/above

Checklist
  • make -j4 test (UNIX), or vcbuild test (Windows) passes
  • documentation is changed or added
  • commit message follows commit guidelines

@nodejs-github-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

Review requested:

  • @nodejs/modules

@nodejs-github-bot nodejs-github-bot added doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. esm Issues and PRs related to the ECMAScript Modules implementation. labels Aug 22, 2020
doc/api/esm.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

That link doesn’t explain why “above” is to be avoided. “Previous”/“preceding” aren’t necessarily better, as to a casual reader a phrase like “the previous example” could be thought to mean an example in an earlier section, not the example in this section just prior to this sentence.

@GeoffreyBooth
Copy link
Member

Don't use to mean earlier.

I think they mean, avoid using “above” as a way to refer to some other section. As in, “the previous section,” not “the above section,” because the documentation may or may not all be on the same page (sections might be broken up onto separate pages/URLs). When referring to things within the same section, I think above/below are fine.

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 23, 2020

That link doesn’t explain why “above” is to be avoided.

Yeah, I opened an issue about that. MicrosoftDocs/microsoft-style-guide#177

My speculation from that link:

Is it because you don't want to make assumptions that people are reading things in a format that runs from top to bottom? For example, if someone is hearing it via a screen-reader, previous or preceding makes more sense than above?

Copy link
Member

@mcollina mcollina left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

lgtm

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 23, 2020

I think they mean, avoid using “above” as a way to refer to some other section.

They're explicit that they mean don't use it as a modifier at all. I believe they meant what they wrote: "Don't use as an adjective preceding a noun (the above section) or following a noun (the code above). Use a link, or use previous, preceding, or earlier."

@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 23, 2020

@GeoffreyBooth For what it's worth, it looks like my suspicion that this is about accessibility is correct.

From https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/accessibility/writing-all-abilities:

Don’t use directional terms as the only clue to location. Left, right, up, down, above, and below aren’t very useful for people who use screen-reading software.

I don't know that our API docs are useful to people using screen-readers and similar technologies, but I guess I also don't know that they aren't useful to them. And ideally, it should be useful to them. But I also don't want to make the docs worse for the common use case. Hopefully, "preceding" works. But if not, I have some other ideas too. And if all else fails, I'll go with your suggestion or else restore "above" and not worry about that one instance for now.

doc/api/esm.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
Refs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/a/above

PR-URL: nodejs#34877
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
@Trott Trott merged commit ad2c22d into nodejs:master Aug 25, 2020
@Trott Trott deleted the above branch August 25, 2020 13:59
@Trott
Copy link
Member Author

Trott commented Aug 25, 2020

Landed in ad2c22d

richardlau pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 1, 2020
Refs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/a/above

PR-URL: #34877
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
@richardlau richardlau mentioned this pull request Sep 2, 2020
4 tasks
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2020
Refs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/a/above

PR-URL: #34877
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
addaleax pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Sep 22, 2020
Refs: https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/style-guide/a-z-word-list-term-collections/a/above

PR-URL: #34877
Reviewed-By: Jan Krems <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Matteo Collina <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Benjamin Gruenbaum <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Anto Aravinth <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Franziska Hinkelmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-By: Trivikram Kamat <[email protected]>
@codebytere codebytere mentioned this pull request Sep 28, 2020
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
doc Issues and PRs related to the documentations. esm Issues and PRs related to the ECMAScript Modules implementation.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

9 participants