Re: [Usability] Re: Term: assistant

["Eli M. Dow" <dowem clarkson edu>]

I think the only distinction to be made is the following:
Wizards have a connotation of performing all work automagically (pardon
the lameness of that sentence) after selecting some extremely high level
concept. 

Assistant can often imply being more passive. For instance providing
extended information about a series of options presented to a user,
while still requiring the majority of work to be carried on by a user
themselves. (actions being performed can still largely be performed
automatically, but a users input remains necessary for a great deal more
than would be requiered from a "wizard".

(I just polled a computer lab full of persons to come to this consensus)

Personally I don't think gnome needs to make the distiction because the
philosophy leans towards simplification. Using only one user visible
term seems like the consensus of the discussion thus far.


I think if ever there was a time to refrain from using antiquated silly
terminology it would be now. 

I would suggest enforcing use of the term "assistant". It has a very
concrete meaning to non computer users, and remains understandable to
persons familiar with the term "wizard". 

defintion from websters.com:

Wizard - 
     1. One who practices magic; a sorcerer or magician. 
     2. A skilled or clever person: a wizard at math.
     3. Archaic. A sage.



Assitant - 
    1. One that assists; a helper.


Clearly assistant makes more sense at least for the english case, and I
suspect the same is true of other languages as well. So I think you've
made the right choice.