Re: name change for gnome-volume-manager?

s�6 08 2006 kl. 15:43 -0400, skrev Robert Love:
> On Sun, 2006-08-06 at 19:32 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > When it was introduced I pointed out that volume is very often associated
> > with audio volume[1] and likely to confuse users - I freely admit it
> > confused me intially - but since it made sense to developers my concerns
> > were dismissed. 
> The reason I was for g-v-m back then, but support the g-d-m (uh-oh, bad
> acronym!) change now is because the scope of g-v-m has changed from just
> volumes to all devices.  G-v-m is now, in fact, our general policy
> manager on top of HAL for all hardware.  Toward that end,
> gnome-hardware-manager makes sense, too.

Of the proposed names I would personally favor using the term hardware,
it's much nicer for users as device has certain techie feel to it.

Would there be any sense in merging g-v-m and the preferred application
thingy, as a user they seem to serve pretty much the same kind of
customization. Then again from there it's not a far cry from saying that
the gstreamer setup application and g-p-m could also fit in there and
voila we have a control panel - I'm not sure that's entirely desirable.

Maybe rethinking where information is displayed would make sense, if we
call g-v-m the hardware manager then for all intents and purposes things
like the keyboard handler would go in there as well, it is hardware
after all. As would the monitor settings and many other things. 

The whole preferences submenu has always seemed like a mess to me
honestly, I would love to see it structured better. It has a feel of
having had an item added everytime we got a new feature from somewhere
rather than having followed the GNOME way and undergone some UI-fu for
sanity and ease of use.

- David Nielsen

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]