(Click to enlarge)

Ascending means A-Z.

I wonder if you are either saying "Judge" should be skipped because it's a title. If so, that's too specific, we're not going to know the word Judge specifically.

Or you may be thinking it should know they are in a "Forename Surname" format and it should sort by Surname. However there's no system for this, and you could just use separate fields.

I always believed ascending meant bottom to top (so like Z-A) and descending meant top to bottom (A-Z). Maybe it's different in code.

Haha, I see what you mean (ascending a mountain), but no you're mistaken here.

http://www.mathsteacher.com.au/year7/ch02_power/06_asc/asc.htm

I'll add a new issue, given that it's confusing. I doubt it'll get handled anytime soon though.

I was thinking alphabetically not numerically, but yeah I suck at maths so thanks for the lesson.

It's using the term in the same way (i.e. lowerer end toward upper end), regardless of data type.

Wouldn't different terms lead to the same issue (ie, up and down) if the order is still the opposite of what you would expect from alphabetic sorting? Maybe standard catalogues should use alphabetic ordering and I assume the numeric stuff is for the ecommerce ones so maybe sort that numerically by default. I think changing the terms wouldn't solve the issue, but then again I don't understand it fully from a coding point of view.

Read how I specified the other issue. I didn't say "up" or "down".

No I was saying up and down as an example of different terms for ascending and descending. Changing the terms doesn't solve the confusing if the ordering is the same. Anyhow, it's not the biggest issue in the world so I shall let you get on with the more important stuff :)

Yeah, my issue talks about changing it to natural language like 'alphabetical'. So we wouldn't be switched out ascending/descending to some other terms, we'd be introducing per-data-type terms that read much more naturally.

Ahh okay, yes that does make sense.