RE: New thread: Naming conventions.

[Daniel Carrera <dcarrera math toronto edu>]

> Are we meaning the new user that previously used MS and doesn't want the
> experience to be any different?  Or the new user, `I have never used a
> computer before in my life'?
I mean the new user who has never used GNOME before.
I have no desire to see GNOME become some sort of Windows clone.  I refuse
to allow GNOME apps to be called "GNOME Word" or "GNOME Excel".
Microsoft and Windows were nowhere in my mind when I wrote my post.  I
simply want GNOME better.

One more reason why I'd prefer a different name than "Yelp":
I am updating the GDP Handbook and I have to refer to Yelp at multiple
poiints.  The natural thing to do is to explain what "Yelp" is in the
introduction section and then refer to "Yelp" by its name from then on.
However, the handbook is big enough that I don't want to expect the reader
to read it cover to cover.  A sign of good documentation is that you don't
have to.

One alternative is to remind the user what Yelp is every now and then.
Another is to make every "Yelp" a link to the paragraph that defines it.
The first option is overly long, the second doesn't work well when you
print the Handbook.  We could have a glossary I guess, but that's not
ideal either.

The fact that I even have to think about all this to make the Handbook
well written indicates that there's something wrong with the name.  I once
took a course about (mostly) designing interfaces.  I learned that the
mark of a good design is that the user will know how to use it
instinctively.  I learned that though documentation is important, nothing
beats having an intuitive design to begin with.  I learned that we
shouldn't tolerate a bad design on the basis that we can document it.

Now, if most people think that "Yelp" is good enough, then fine.  Kevin
has a good point that we can't change application names all the time.  I
thought that it might still be possible to change "Yelp" because GNOME 2
hasn't been released yet.

Cheers,
Daniel.