Re: [Usability] desktop entry names, generic?

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Wed, 2004-06-16 at 18:14 -0400, Bryan Clark wrote:
> Hi ~
> 
> doing both lists just to get the idea stated, but lets please keep any
> discussion on the usability list only please.
> 
> We're updated the HIG recommendation for menu item names.  Currently we
> are requiring a GenericName and Name for .desktop entries, where a
> generic name is purely the applications functionality ("Web Browser")
> with out it's application name and the name is the proper name which has
> the applications name and its functionality together (App Name +
> GenericName, "Epiphany Web Browser")

I've found the naming situation to be rather annoying so far with
respect to documentation.  Currently, I select Games->Lines, but the
documentation is called "Glines Manual V2.6" and discussions some
"Glines" program.  I'm certain I don't have that in my menus.

On a complete reversal, Rhythmbox's documentation refers to "Music
Player" all the way through.  While that's consistent with its menu
entry (for now), I can't help but wonder if this just causes more harm
than good.  People who know it's called Rhythmbox are going to have a
tough time picking out the correct document in a line-up.

And now what happens when we have three players that all want to be
"Music Player"?  Sure, we can do magical menu shifting in the menu.
(Aside: Shifting interfaces are hard to document well.)  But if the
applications menu shifts, the documentation menu should shift as well.
That's probably manageable, but there's little hope of shifting all
occurances of the application name in the document itself.  And that
just creates inconsistency and confusion.

My vote is in favor of "Rhythmbox Music Player" and "Epiphany Web
Browser".  In an ideal world, maybe we could completely hide the
existence of applications.  But in this world, I think this naming
convention is the least confusing overall.

--
Shaun