Updates on referring to object names and using realistic usernames

[julian-cable]

No description provided.

[rclee33]

I added some notes and edits. Please let me know if you have any questions, or if you want to talk more!

[rclee33]

I can dig more into this, but my current sense is that we might want to avoid terms such as "male" and "female" here, since those relate to biological sex, and these terms could be considered trans-exclusive when used as adjectives in some contexts. To avoid this issue, I suggest more general and inclusive language here, such as "gender inclusive". I chose "gender inclusive" over "gender neutral" because in our context, our aim is for names representing a variety of genders, rather than no gender.

[rclee33]

Suggested change

	For example, use male, female, and culturally diverse names that suggest various backgrounds in examples to avoid implying that only certain groups have specific skills.
	For example, use gender inclusive and culturally diverse names that suggest various backgrounds to avoid implying that only certain groups have specific skills.

[rclee33]

Suggested change

	However, for the name "Brian Smith", a corresponding email address of <email>bstrong@example.com</email> might not work so well (when read out, it sounds like "be strong").
	However, for the name "Brian Strong", a corresponding email address of <email>bstrong@example.com</email> might be less effective (when read out, it sounds like "be strong").

[rclee33]

I kind of want to know why bstrong@ doesn't work, so that we can explain this more clearly. Is it too informal? I understand that in other cases, such abbreviations could result in inappropriate meanings -- but I'm curious about why bstrong doesn't work. This might be something for us to clarify.

[daobrien]

I don't mean "bstrong" specifically ("Be strong!") but rather be aware of how names might result in odd emails, usernames, or whatever. E.g., if you chose "Tyroner Osser" as a name the result would be not great. Long story short: be aware.

[rclee33]

Suggested change

	However, if the noun refers to a password, a value, or a status, then instead it flows better to state the object name first, followed by "as the password" as an example.
	However, in come cases, the sentence might be easier to understand if the noun appears first, or if additional language separates the object name from the noun.
	For example, if the noun refers to a password, a value, or a status, then consider stating the noun first, including explanatory language between the object name and the noun, or doing both.

[rclee33]

Note that my suggested edit is to create two sentences out of one.

I think the original explanation didn't quite match the examples. For instance, the redhat password example -- in this example, the name appears before the noun in both versions, which is the expectation (not an exception). The exception is the additional language between the name and the noun, but that wasn't described.

And the second example (the variable value) does show using the noun before the name (a value of tmp) -- but that's not what the original explanation described.

I tried to expand the original description to include both types of examples.

I'm noticing that both of these examples are situations where values are being introduced for the first time, which is why the usual format doesn't work -- because "use the X password" or "change to the Y value" implies that this is given information (because of the definitive article). But if this is the first mention, then such phrasing can be confusing for learners, since this information is new to them. My sense is that these exceptions might make the most sense when providing the learner with new information -- but I'm not sure if that's always the case. To stay on the safe side, I didn't try to include that context in my suggested edit. (But thought I would share my thinking anyway! =)

[rclee33]

Based on David's explanation, maybe we could add a line after 763 that says something like: "Avoid name combinations or abbreviations that result in unintended meanings, such as slang."

This might be kind of obvious, but seems worth explaining directly (along with the examples).