Re: Regarding Nautilus scripts

[Sriram Ramkrishna <sri aracnet com>]

On Sat, Jun 28, 2003 at 12:12:44PM +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
> There are 2 possible justifications for "Scripts" as the string.
> 
> One is that people have to write them for their site-specific actions.
> If they have any installed, they are generally a unix guru who knows
> what they are.

Scripts would be intuitively obvious to a unix person but not to 
others.  I think labeling is going to be a hard problem for this
particular item.  It really depends on how often this feature is 
used.  In which case, I'd just include it and if people don't know they
can RTFD.  

Of course thats a great segway on how to do integrated help where people
could get information on unfamiliar terms in our desktop.  For instance,
a nice link to a glossary for "scripts" could help somewhat.   

Not sure how much though because people who learn on computers
generally learn the steps to do an action but never the reason why
you have to.  This is why they get greatly confused when a scripted
action is suddenly goes wrong and they get lost.  Their first
reaction is almost never to look at help but rather to call someone
they trust. :) (cool business model to offer computer help on GNOME)
So maybe adding such features is fluff and bloat or maybe it's proper
professionalism for those personalities that do help.  (or hell, register
a GNOME help link in google so it can show up)

> The second is that "Actions" can mean anything. Cut, copy and paste are
> also actions. Scripts at least tells you _something_ about the submenu,
> even if it does disclose an implementation detail.

You could make it personal by saying "My Actions" to indicate a 
seperation of user and system actions.  This makes it problematic
though with software that installs actions into the scripts area.  
In which case that should be greatly discouraged and we should have
some set of rules for non-personal software to install it's actions.


regards,
sri