Re: [Usability]Definition of "desktop" - was a Usability topic.

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 04:51:28PM +0000, Pat Costello wrote:
> Jeff states: 
> 
> > But the desktop is the "thingy wot has icons on it"...
> 
> Interestingly, there has been low-intensity smouldering over the term "desktop" 
> for some time. I'd like to refer you (and everyone else) to the GNOME Foundation 
> statement on the http://www.gnome.org/intro/findout.html page, namely: 
> 
> o The GNOME desktop: an easy to use windows-based environment for users. 
> 
> This definition does not imply that the desktop is the "thingy behind the 
> icons". This definition in fact implies that the desktop is the sum of all 
> parts, in other words the complete environment. The documentation team have 
> attempted to apply this definition consistently. The GNOME Foundation definition 
> for "desktop" has some logical consequences. The foremost of these consequences, 
> as far as the present discussion is concerned, is that "Desktop" is the single 
> most globally-encompassing term available to us, not GNOME. Another consequence 
> of the GNOME Foundation definition of "desktop" is that the "thingy behind the 
> icons" must be called the "desktop background".  
>

Just a .02, isn't it a weird technical detail of Unix that "the
desktop" is a module separate from "the OS." Certainly Mac/Windows
don't have this distinction.

Sometimes when we say "desktop" to mean "the big all-encompassing
thing" perhaps we could say "system" or "computer" or something 
along those lines.
 
Havoc