Re: [Usability] application names in the application menu

On Sa, 2008-03-29 at 12:27 +0000, Calum Benson wrote:
> On 28 Mar 2008, at 17:30, daniel g. siegel wrote:
> >
> > now i learned, that it was very confusing to have names like nautilus,
> > epiphany, cheese for a guy, who hears those names for the first  
> > time. so
> > it would be better to have menu entries like "Texteditor" (gedit) or
> > "Document viewer" (evince). but then, who would know how the  
> > application
> > should be called? how could he then submit a bug report to _that_
> > program? how can the person find the projects website on a search
> > engine? is a program name senseless?
> The HIG is fairly clear about the wording of Applications menu entries  
> and tooltips::
> < 
>  >
> < 
>  >
> Historically, when we wrote the HIG we originally wanted all the core  
> GNOME desktop apps to have functional names only, to alleviate some of  
> this confusion.  Thus there would be no "gedit", no "nautilus", no  
> "epiphany"; only the GNOME "text editor", "file manager" and "web  
> browser".
> However, some maintainers (not necessarily the ones I just mentioned,  
> FWIW-- I can't actually remember which ones now) saw this as an  
> erosion of their project's identity, and weren't willing to make this  
> change.  So we came to the uneasy compromise of having the functional  
> name on the menu, but allowing the project name in the application and  
> its documentation.  This undoubtedly does confuse some users.
> In summary, now that you're a core desktop application and there are  
> no other core applications with a similar function, your menu entry  
> should not include the word "Cheese".  It should be something like  
> "Webcam Snapshot" (I'm sure we can do better than that, I haven't  
> really woken up yet!), and the tooltip something like "Take photos and  
> videos directly from an attached camera".  You can use the name  
> "Cheese" in the application itself, and in the documentation if that's  
> what the current docs guidelines allow, but preferably no more than  
> necessary.

i can do that without a problem, BUT i would like to have that
"standarized" over the GNOME desktop. i thought about the 3 things we
use at the moment and i came up with this:

[application name] (e.g. cheese)
  + strong identity for the application
  - confusing for people

[application name] [short description] (e.g. f-spot photo manager)
  + enhances the projects identity
  + gives an idea what the application is about
  - the application name is confusing for people
  - looses its romance (unreal tournament vs. unreal tournament first person shooter game)

[short description] (e.g. text editor)
  + gives an idea what the application is about
  - probably not easy to find?
  - the project could loose its identity and finding the project page or
    bugs page could be more difficult for users
  - if several applications, which do the same are installed, this
    creates confusion, e.g. firefox and epiphany

now the HIG suggests to use [application name] [short description]
or [short description] if this is possible. could we agree to just use
one of those three mentioned or at least do the same?


> Cheeri,
> Calum.
this mail was sent using 100% recycled electrons
daniel g. siegel <dgsiegel gmail com>
gnupg key id: 0x6EEC9E62
fingerprint: DE5B 1F64 9034 1FB6 E120 DE10 268D AFD5 6EEC 9E62
encrypted email preferred

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]