Re: Gnome desktop files doesn't follow the freedesktop standards

["Britt Selvitelle" <mbs uky edu>]

I must say I agree here. Imposing generic names for all core Gnome applicatins seems like a bad idea. For example look at other platforms:

Microsoft Windows:
  Internet Explorer (Web Browser)
  Explorer (File Management)
  Outlook (Email)

Apple OSX:
  iChat (Instant Messanger)
  Expose (Windows Shuffler Thing)
  Quicktime (Apple Movie Player)

Although applying a generic name might make an application's purpose initially more intuitave based on the title alone, it is important to note that as Jeff pointed out that while usable, it's also rather boring. Of course not everything has to be 'exciting and in-your-face,' but it does add to the appeal of the desktop if some applications are more attractivly named.

Britt

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Waugh <jdub perkypants org>
To: desktop-devel-list gnome org
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 19:33:29 +1100
Subject: Re: Gnome desktop files doesn't follow the freedesktop standards

<quote who="Seth Nickell">

> Sanity and sysadmin are not necessarily words that belong together. But 
> beyond that I found from interviewing admins that they are always under 
> pressure to install different flavours of applications. Often they say 
> 'no' (usu for their own sanity, not usability) but I don't know if you 
> can expect this for many apps.

For distros and admins, it's usually a question of support. Which basically
means that if anyone wants something else, they will know what that means at
a deeper level.

> Beyond that, things changing names in response to installation is really 
> quirky.

Not installation; appearance. If the menu system sees two .desktop files in
the category with the same GenericName, it starts showing specifics.

> Maybe I didn't make the intention clear enough in the hig:
> 
> If your app is THE gnome application for doing X, it should be called X. 
> If its one of many possible add-ons to Gnome, it should be Name X.

We can't enforce this technically. It's going to be a social issue. I'm sure
the Jamboree dudes and Galeon dudes would be a bit miffed if we demanded
that they couldn't give their apps usable and GNOME-standard menu names.

> So I don't really know solutions to these grumps and the squashing of 
> mainainer creativity and the peskiness of mass renaming.... But I'm 
> pretty sure its best (and a big imporvement, not just a dinky thing) 
> from a usability standpoint.

Getting off the track of usable menu labels... and please note that none of
the following applies to user interface stuff specifically.

You've essentially ruled out branding in the name of usability. Stuff that
is in the desktop should not necessarily require strong branding, but if it
is a point of interest, or an application that will be used often (and
perhaps intimately), branding can be a positive thing (for usability too).

What is 'Safari'? If the only context I had was the name, then I'd be
miffed, but we provide far more context in our user interface, and stepping
stones to understanding the context. People are far more likely to embrace
the exciting Safari or Epiphany than the bland Web Browser. East Berlin had
better branding, familiarity, culture and recognition than this! ;-)

We need to Do The Right Thing on screen, but I don't think we need to
sacrifice excitement in the name of hardline usability iron-fistism.

Ha ha. Iron-fistism.

- Jeff

--
linux.conf.au 2004: Adelaide, Australia         http://lca2004.linux.org.au/

                            "How was the opera?"
                     "The seats were very comfortable."
_______________________________________________
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list