Remix.run Logo
maplethorpe 5 hours ago

So for the example in the article:

> Would you like to share your profile photo?

> Yes, share my profile photo

> No, do not share my profile photo

You'd prefer it says "your" profile photo, instead? Wouldn't that make it sound like I'm sharing someone else's photo?

SoftTalker 25 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

In that example I'd prefer that the options are simply "Yes" or "No".

Why repeat the premise of the question in each answer?

Even simpler is a checkbox:

[ ] Share my profile photo.

sublinear 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

The example is bloated UI to begin with. It should just be a checkbox with the label: "Share your profile photo".

This is going on a tangent now, but making things more clear and concise allows more options to fit on one screen which also reduces the need for endless submenus. This is a better experience because the user doesn't have to remember where the option is if they're all on one screen anyway, yet still broken up under subheadings.

d1sxeyes 5 hours ago | parent [-]

“Share profile photo” vs “Don’t share profile photo” is just as clear, even more concise, and no ambiguity.

StopDisinfo910 4 hours ago | parent [-]

It’s also grammatically incorrect.

Edit: As I stand massively downvoted at this point in time despite my comment being entirely factually correct, I invite any potential downvoter to consider the sentence “Give me apple” before reaching for the button.

danaris 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Those are not analogous. You have added a direct object without preposition, which is not standard usage in such contexts.

The closest analogous sentence would be "Give apple", which works perfectly well as a choice to select in a textual medium.

This form of imperative clause does have clear and consistent rules, whether you like them or not.

And just stating that your opinion is factually correct, when it is plainly not, reeeeeally doesn't help your cause.

DonHopkins 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That's factually incorrect, which is worse.

Imperative mood: subject you is implied, so no need to write it.

https://www.grammar-monster.com/glossary/imperative_mood.htm

Zero article/bare noun phrase: allows omission of your, the, etc. in fixed instructions.

https://www.thoughtco.com/zero-article-grammar-1692619

Standard negation: "don’t" is the grammatical way to negate an imperative.

https://www.scribbr.com/verbs/imperative-mood

StopDisinfo910 4 hours ago | parent [-]

Sadly that is factually correct and none of the links in your reply actually supports your point.

The rule about the zero article doesn't list the case of a noun after an imperative.

The first link is about the subject, not the object and the third is about negative imperative. Why are you posting links about completely unrelated things?

Once again, using a noun without an article this way is gramaticaly incorrect.

crazygringo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

"Share profile photo" would be grammatically incorrect as a complete sentence.

But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.

English has different grammar rules in different contexts. For example, newspaper headlines omit articles all the time. That doesn't make the NYT grammatically incorrect on every page, though. Because they're using correct headline grammar, which is different from sentence grammar.

andoando 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Heres a secret: Grammer rules are just whats colloquially acceptable speech 50 years ago

StopDisinfo910 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> But it's perfectly grammatically correct as a command label.

Agree to disagree. The reason it sounds robotic is because it's grammaticaly incorrect. The article is not optional before the object in this sentence.

card_zero 4 hours ago | parent [-]

How about these commands:

Raise anchor, fix bayonets, hands up

I think I'm with crazygringo on this one, there's special command grammar.

Thorrez 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The 2nd and 3rd examples are plural. You don't need an article for plural nouns. "Fix bayonets." and "Fix the bayonet." are standard grammar. "Fix bayonet." isn't.

card_zero 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Well, hands up is lacking a verb, and fix bayonets is in a funny passive tense - or something - because it seems to say "generally go around looking for bayonets to fix", but means specifically "fix your bayonets". In fact hands up is like that too, the intent is "put your hands up", not just "put hands up" in the abstract.

Then there's informational signs, too. Wet floor is not an instruction. Labels generally aren't sentences.

Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.

StopDisinfo910 2 hours ago | parent [-]

> Or instructions on signs: ring bell for assistance, return tray to counter, close gate after use.

I have never seen this.

I have seen plenty of "Please close the gate" or "Keep the gate closed". Sometimes, the article is eluded when the noun is subject "Gate must be kept closed" but imperative + noun without an article on a sign seem highly unusual to me. It feels weird so I would definitely notice.

I have seen "ring bell for assistance" however. It's jarring everytime. I must be the strange one.

positron26 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Wouldn't that make it sound like I'm sharing someone else's photo?

Since the second party is not present, that interpretation makes no sense and users wouldn't interpret it that way in native English.