Re: [Usability] Gnome Wallpaper Properties

[John F Dixon Iv <John Dixon ndsu nodak edu>]

Rodney Dawes wrote:

> "Images" wouldn't be correct though. "No Wallpaper" contains no images,
> for example. And it wouldn't remove any superfluousness from the dialog
> in that sense. A list full of thumbnails makes it pretty obvious what it
> is. It is nominally decorative and for accessibility. Dumping it
> entirely makes it difficult to make the dialog accessible. Looking
> throughout my desktop, a great number of the labels are superfluous, at
> least in terms of how I understand a computer. Not everyone sees things
> in the same way, and sometimes we must be superfluous to allow others to
> use things in a similar way. I don't think "it is superfluous" is a
> sufficient argument for changing or removing labels in any application.
>  
I am not taking issue with the "Wallpaper" v. "Desktop Background" 
issue. In fact, i think that, for a variety of reasons, Wallpaper is the 
better choice. The issue that i am driving at is that there is an 
ambiguity here in what constitutues wallpaper. To me, it seems like you 
are equating images with wallpaper. I understand wallpaper to be the sum 
of two parts. The first part, the image part, lies on top of the second 
part, the background color part. Together, they constitute the 
wallpaper. My favorite "wallpaper" consists of a blue background with 
the gnome-background-image.png over it, for example. If there is a need 
to label the list, then i think that "Images" or something similar is 
more appropriate because it deals with only 1/2 of the wallpaper (the 
way i understand it). Even if you don't agree with any of this, why is 
"Available Wallpapers" better than just "Wallpapers"?

Sincerely,
John