Re: [HIG] Naming

On Tue, Nov 06, 2001 at 12:18:55PM -0800, Seth Nickell wrote:
> Based on recent discussions on g-h I feel like it would be helpful for
> the HIG to distance itself from Apple's HIG. I would propose that, we
> consider selecting a different name. The current name hasn't really been
> publicized, so I don't think there's any substantial problem in
> switching (especially to something similar). Adam suggested "HI
> Handbook" after noting that the guidelines are no longer "mini" but
> aren't the full length guidelines we aspire eventually to write (maybe).
> I thought it might be nice to use the word "Usability" instead, because
> while not as cool sounding, its the word we've been using elsewhere (for
> example, the "Usability Project", and even within the HIG). Adam points
> out that its not as precise, but I think what it loses in precision it
> makes up for in recognition by non-usability people.

As you may have guessed, I don't like Human Interface Guidelines because
it isn't clear what the interface is between; put another way,
"Interfacing with humans sounds like fun!" Perhaps more frightful -
"Humans have interfaces? Do they accept RJ-45 connectors?"

> a) "Human Interface Guidelines"


> b) "Human Interface Handbook"

ibid. and too loose.

> c) "Usability Guidelines"

Too broad.

I'm thinking ISG are the initials to use, it sound almost like ISO; well,
also like MSG, but don't most hackers like a certain kind of food that is
known to contain much of that?

  GNOME Interface Style Guide
  GNOME Interface Standard Guide

hmm, or maybe:

  GNOME Interface Standards

Humbug to the 'guiding' part; follow it or else. :-)

I think it's more important that the developers read what's in it than that
the title try to reinforce some anthropcentric worldview.

Cum grano salis,
Greg Merchan

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