Re: [Nautilus-list] Preferences dialog: Suggested label change

["Eugene O'Connor" <eugene oconnor sun com>]

I'd like to respond to a couple of the suggestions in the last few
mails:

1. Only novice users benefit from the use of consistent terminology

I disagree. If someone doesn't understand a term first time, they can
experiment to see what happens, or consult the glossary. But the UI and
the documentation can build understanding and recognition of these
terms, and the best way to achieve this is by consistent usage.

David points out that more experienced users figure things out by trying
them out. If we use terms consistently in the UI, they won't need to do
this as often. When the user builds up trust in a consistent UI, they
can predict what a well-labelled option will do. Without needing to
experiment, never mind read the manual.

2. Using standardized and consistent terminology means more words in the
UI and documentation

I think the opposite is true. When we define a term, we can express a
complex concept in a few words.
The UI can rely on the documentation to explain the concept. The
documentation explains the concept once and thereafter uses the term.

So, although it can be a headache I think it is well worth trying hard
to create UI labels that are as clear, concise, and accurate as
possible. 

Eugene
[dismount soap box ;)]

David Emory Watson wrote:
> 
> I agree with you that we are going slightly off the deep end with this,
> however, if you look at the link that Eugene posted:
> 
> http://developer.gnome.org/documents/style-guide/gnome-glossary-desktop.html
> 
> you'll see why desktop icons is a bad name (desktop currently refers
> collectively to the panels and windows, the desktop background, etc.)
> Since the GNOME documentation writers have no doubt relied on these
> definitions, it makes sense for our application to be consistent with
> our documentation.
> 
> But here's what I think is really going on.  We are fighting from 2
> different perspectives:
> 
> 1) Writers & users who pay attention - They want consistency.
> 
> 2) Other users (probably the majority) - They don't read manuals
> anyway.  They figure things out by trying them and seeing what happens.
> For them, more words -> more reading -> more headaches.
> 
> It appears, and I don't think that this is news, that it very will be
> difficult to satisfy everyone.
> 
> That said, I vote that we use Eugene's idea for the time being.
> 
> On Wed, 2002-04-03 at 07:24, Mattias Eriksson wrote:
> > About this Desktop Background thing, I don't think we should confuse the
> > user by using backgound for the background and stuff on it.
> >
> > The background is the pickture or color of the background, the icons are
> > NOT part of the background. The are placed on the desktop and might be
> > called desktop objects, but not desktop background objects... why not
> > simply call them Desktop icons?
> >
> > //Snaggen, think people are trying too hard.
> >
> > ons 2002-04-03 klockan 15.02 skrev Eugene O'Connor:
> >
> > bla bla bla...
> >
> > > ----Desktop Background---------------------
> > > |
> > > | [v] Use Nautilus to draw the desktop background      (CHECK BOX)
> > > |
> > >
> > > ----Desktop Background Objects-------------
> > > |
> > > | (*) Display default desktop background objects       (RADIO BUTTONS)
> > > | ( ) Display contents of your home folder as desktop background objects
> > > |
> > >
> > > I think this is more precise. Should I log this in bugzilla?
> > >
> > > Eugene
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > nautilus-list mailing list
> > > nautilus-list lists eazel com
> > > http://lists.eazel.com/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > nautilus-list mailing list
> > nautilus-list lists eazel com
> > http://lists.eazel.com/mailman/listinfo/nautilus-list
> >