Re: desktop file summarization

[Callum McKenzie <callum physics otago ac nz>]

> I think this should be determined on an use basis.  For example... with a
> web browser, it makes perfect sense for you to be able to call it "Web
> Browser" as thats exactly what it does and there isnt' much variation
> between web browsers, but for something like a word processor, there
> should be an app name present.  In general I think a function name should
> be use everywhere that it would not be confusing.

I agree, after all people generally don't want to "use epiphany", or
"use mozilla", the want to "browse the web". Actually, they want to
"look at pr0n", but "browse the web" describes the full range of
functionality available. Unfortunately we have this problem that there
are different ways to achieve this functionality. I think ideally the
menu should contain one option, and only one, for each function. There
should be a secondary mechanism to pick a "favourite" variant. You then
have your functional name in the menu and the "real" name is in the list
of options. This has the advantage that the menus are kept shorter, but
the disadvantage that I can't think of a good way to make the other
options reasonably obvious to find (there are plenty of bad ways: e.g.
right clicking on a menu item or windows style hover-and-expand, but
these fall into the category of atrocities).

-- 

- Callum