[sublinear]

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]

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

[StopDisinfo910]

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]

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.

[StopDisinfo910]

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

Definitely no, "Give apple" is baby talk. Completely unacceptable in a choice. That's not proper English. I will die on that hill.

I'm actually shocked by the amount of people here who thinks it's acceptable and fine.

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

The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition. It's entirely analogous to what I wrote. Are you confused by the "me" in my sentence. "Me" is an indirect object here.

We basically have the same sentence. It just became entirely obvious that omitting the article is erroneous as soon as you had an indirect object. It's equally erroneous without it but apparently people have somehow convinced themselves it is acceptable after years of misuse in poor computer interfaces.

[munificent]

> That's not proper English.

There is no officially sanctioned authority specifying the English language so "proper English" is not a defined concept in any way or form. You can choose to die on that hill, but you're fighting a war that doesn't even have defined sides.

[danaris]

Would you like to give them the apple or the pear?

] Give Apple

] Give Pear

Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options?

> The "apple" in "give apple" is a direct object without preposition

My apologies, you're correct. I mistyped—I should have said "indirect object". That does not negate any of the rest of what I said.

[StopDisinfo910]

> Do you actually think this is an unacceptable and grammatically incorrect way of phrasing these provided options?

Yes, I do.

That’s Sierra-like poorly phrased English to save characters in a constrained support. Completely incorrect in any context, inacceptable when you don’t have to save bits.

It’s only somewhat understandable because the zero article is used with proper name. Actually I find it interesting that you found the need to capitalise.

[d1sxeyes]

Telegraphic style is not grammatically incorrect, it’s a feature of instructional English.

Consider “insert nut into bolt”, “slice onion thinly”, or “sprinkle vinegar over chips”.

I agree that your counter example does not work, but that’s due to the ambiguity introduced by having both an indirect and direct object. In a list of short instructions, “give apple to me” would not be ungrammatical.

[d1sxeyes]

obviously you insert bolts into nuts, not the other way round.

[DonHopkins]

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]

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]

"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]

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

[StopDisinfo910]

> 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.