Review and edit user.module embedded help

hi keith, so after working on the block.module ui I moved on to this. I wasn't clear about "approved" or "authenticated." Here are my revisions:

+      $output = '<p>' . t('The user module handles user account registration and authentication, which allow content to be associated with the user who contributed it. The user module is also critical to site security through configurable roles; roles define detailed permissions available to groups of users. There are two default roles and associated permissions: <em>anonymous user</em>, all visitors who have not logged in; and<em>authenticated user</em>, all users who have logged in to approved accounts. Administrators may define additional roles and permissions, and permissions are applied cumulatively to any users with multiple roles.') . '</p>';

 +     $output .= '<p>' . t("Users choose a name or handle, and can change account settings through their <em>My account</em> page. Depending on site configuration, users must log-in by supplying their previously-registered and authenticated username and password; through OpenID, a secure method for logging into multiple websites; with a username and password from another Drupal site; or by some other site-specific mechanism.") . '</p>';

+       $output .= '<p>' . t('Users should have browser cookies enabled when visiting your site. The cookie stores a unique ID, or session ID, for each user. It contains no personal information, but acts as an information retrieval key for each visit.') . '</p>';

Sounds good keith.smith.

I'm something of a perfectionist when it comes to copy editing, so feel free to ignore this, but in the third paragraph I tweaked a repeating word ('each'). Such small edits can make a big difference, especially in text read repeatedly. (If you listen to the versions out loud, an improvement is immediately noticeable; visual reading sometimes isolates words from their greater context.)

Previously my revision was:

+ $output .= '<p>' . t('Users should have browser cookies enabled when visiting your site. The cookie stores a unique ID, or session ID, for each user. It contains no personal information, but acts as an information retrieval key for each visit.') . '</p>';

Now with the small tweak:

$output .= '<p>' . t('Users should have browser cookies enabled when visiting your site. The cookie stores a unique ID, or session ID, for each user. It contains no personal information, but acts as an information retrieval key for the visit.') . '</p>';

Also, where you say:

Unfortunately, I can't RTBC this, since its my patch.

Can I help?

- will

The user module handles user account registration and authentication, which allow content

Shouldn't that read:
The user module handles user account registration and authentication, which allows content

The user module handles user account registration and authentication, which allow content to be associated with the user who contributed it.

Shouldn't that read:
The user module handles user account registration and authentication, which allows content

Not in my mind, because grammatically it is two things, registration and authentication, plural, that are doing the allowing. The clauses should stand independently. So let's break it into two sentences:

The user module handles user account registration and authentication.
User account registration and authentication allow content to be associated with the user who contributed it.

or

The user module handles user account registration and authentication.
User account registration and authentication allows content to be associated with the user who contributed it.

So if in the context of Drupal usage, "registration and authentication" are the same thing, then you're right, it should be "allows." Otherwise, no.

Grammar and usage, however, must be flexible to the greater purpose of intelligible reading. if "allow" is a stumblingblock and just 'sounds wrong,' then, yes, we should recognize that this is a special case, and change it in the interests if smoother language.

Keith what do you think? And I tell you what, if this is just editing the .txt file, saving as .patch, and uploading it via the upload feature on this page, then I can do that if needed.

Thanks for input, and also do point me in the direction of more ui copy editing needs. Should I just grab text from the ui myself and open an issue?

-- Will

Maybe something like "The user module handles user account registration and authentication, allowing content to be associated with the user who contributed it."

Nice.

OK I edited the patch and to say "allowing," and here it is.

Because installation profiles can (and the default install profile does) add a role, "default" is not the best word choice. There can be other roles provided by default, and these two core roles cannot be overridden.

With a the proposal in "make roles admin look like content types" to refer to these roles as built-in (a follow-up to that issue that could perhaps be rolled in over here with only maiming a kitten). Built-in wasn't popular there, and i don't love it either, but "default" is simply misleading.

how does resident sound in place of default

forgot to change status

My Bad. win line endings

User module help page got updated during the big core help update. Feel free to re-open if you find specific issues with the current text.