Placing this in the coffee corner doesn't mean that I think it's trivial. Au contrair mon frère, I think it's important. But I didn't want to pollute any other forum.
Okay, this is my concern:
When creating a new glossary, you have the step to create the physical form of it and the step to create a reference to it, the RES file.
This two-step approach is very difficult to understand for some (many?) users. Of course I can somehow understand the technical background, but it would be interesting to investigate whether steps can be cut down and the process can be simplified.
This is how it works now:
First step, choose Glossary > New glossary. Then you see:
But is this the relevant name? First I thought that the name that you enter as Description would be 'the name':
You see? It's 'my glossary'! Without the '.txt'. So far so good. But why the need to confirm the creation of a RES file:
I think that this is CafeTran-internal and the the user shouldn't be bothered with this.
The user wants to save his glossary to U:, the RES will be saved on C: (inside the CafeTran package, fine), it's a technical process that the user doesn't need to see.
Or am I wrong here? Why is this step necessary? To allow a different name for the RES? I guess that this RES is responsible for the name shown in the Glossary menu? But why would it be necessary to change the name from the linked glossary.txt file?
Then there is this question: where is the description that you enter displayed?
This would be the step that can be skipped, I guess:
Save resource information
This is the set-up:
This is how it looks:
(glossary name shown as alternative target term)
With these 3 glossaries, I hit F2, I would expect:
Content of the High priority glossary, content of the Medium priority glossary, content of the Low priority glossary. Instead I get:
Numbers 5 and 6 are swapped. The content of AG should be displayed before the content of BG:
Entries in the list of glossary and memory matches (F2 shortcut) are sorted alphabetically, and this is what most users would expect.
> Okay, but where if not there, come the three priorities to effect?
In the creation of the auto-assembled translation.