tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post3627469737126427395..comments2009-10-20T14:59:19.972-04:00Dick Margulishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10169512038331158003noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post-32100823888720542612009-10-20T13:14:59.588-04:002009-10-20T13:14:59.588-04:00my opinion, it doesn&#39;t matter so much, but should be consistent.<br /><br />Given that you &quot;sign&quot; the &quot;log&quot; (in your example) when coming in or going out, their usage would be the same.<br /><br />I would argue, however, that &quot;in&quot; or &quot;on&quot; depends on the object. I would &quot;sign in&quot; to work, but I&#39;m actually &quot;logging <i>on</i>&quot; to a server. (I&#39;m attached to it, I wouldn&#39;t fit inside it.)<br /><br />Put another way, you would log on to your computer, by signing in to your account. You can sign in to facebook to access your account, but after logging on to the network to get to the internet.<br /><br />I used terminals attached to mainframes, back in the day. (I&#39;ve programmed with punch cards - I&#39;m that old.) And this is usually the context in which I hear these terms used.-dchttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13678214945055045138noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-27606211.post-10918938730939140532009-10-16T11:23:58.184-04:002009-10-16T11:23:58.184-04:00Dick:<br /><br />I agree completely, especially with the idea that a single company should use the same log/sign in/on/out options on all its products. This makes me want to check to verify whether my employer&#39;s product sign-ons are consistent.Margarethttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00026699696336446875noreply@blogger.com