Add consistency to attribute's dialogs

[DelazJ]

This PR use same terms in the different attribute's dialogs. This replace :

• "New column" and "Delete column" buttons label in attribute table dialog and layer's property> field's page by the terms "New field" and "Delete field". Their corresponding dialogs title are also renamed.
• "Field" is used rather than "attributes" in dialogs that create a new OGR vector layer or a new spatialite one.
• the attribute "width" of field is replaced by "length"
• fixes some descriptions and typos in attribute's form customization

sorry; Could not build qgis so screenshots are from QtDesigner.

partly fixes #9464
See comments in the issue report.

[m-kuhn]

For reference http://hub.qgis.org/issues/9464

[m-kuhn]

@DelazJ Please edit the top message to include details about what this pull request introduces and attach screenshots if useful. This makes it much easier for reviewers.

@anitagraser @nyalldawson @nirvn @NathanW2

Calling the UX department

[DelazJ]

@m-kuhn , sorry for the delay. More comments added now.

To fully solve the issue and the thoughts that have emerged from that report, I'd like to know:

• Are there rules about Title casing of dialog's title?
• What are the correspondance between type and provider type fields in "add a new column" dialog and type and type name in layer's properties > fields tab. Are they about same things? And which terms to keep for consistency?

[m-kuhn]

@DelazJ thanks for the update.

Not sure about a rule, I'd personally go for capitalized dialog titles.

provider type is the native raw data type from the provider.
Since all providers have (slightly) different types, they need to be converted to something more generic we can use inside QGIS. These generic types are the type.
So they both have their purpose.

+1 for Width -> Length

I think I remember a discussion (on the mailing list?) about field vs. attribute and that somebody ( @wonder-sk ? ) to argue that the term attribute should be used on layer/table level and field at the feature/row level. Not sure what others think about it. Personally I tend towards consistency but I'd like to wait for other comments.

[NathanW2]

@m-kuhn I'm a fan of consistency. IMO attribute == field so we just pick on and go with it at least for the UI.

[carlospsig]

Go for consistency!

(Matthias at the keyboard)
El dia 06/11/2015 0:03, "Nathan Woodrow" notifications@github.com va
escriure:

@m-kuhn https://github.com/m-kuhn I'm a fan of consistency. IMO attribute
== field so we just pick on and go with it at least for the UI.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#2327 (comment).

[anitagraser]

Great, +1 for consistency!

If you are already touching the attribute table dialog: Could we add undo and redo buttons like we have in the advanced editing toolbar? Otherwise the only way to undo, e.g. adding a field, is to stop editing and discard all previous changes.

[m-kuhn]

Can you change that to "edit widget"

[michaelkirk]

👍 This is great, thank you!