Heikki, One thing to consider just for context.
I only occasionally pop into the chandler list and software to see what is going on. My perspective is fresh. And if the goal is to eliminate confusion (which I had when I looked at the software yesterday) then you should be open to the possibility that whether something was considered or discussed before, it may still be confusing. I am confident that the new terms you introduce are confusing. What I would *strongly* suggest is some user testing where you put a new user in front of the software and see what confuses them. This is a much more trustworthy strategy than depending on your own intuition when you have been looking at the same software for months or years. additional comments inline. > I believe all of Chandler terminology has been thought over many times, > and both tags and categories have been thought of as well. I am not surprised that it has been thought over. What I am suggesting is that familiarity is very important and that the custom terminology does not buy you anything, and it confused *me* (note: I helped define the PIM category on the mac in the late 80's so I shouldnt be easily confused). In truth I do not see any difference between your collections, and what iTunes calls folders. As far as I can tell the behavior is exactly analogous. I know the argument here will be that the folder metaphor isnt exactly right. My point is it doesn't matter. Latest(?) > idea is to call them workspaces. Context has also been thrown about, and > possibly many others. I'll have to refer to the design team for the full > history of terminology. > Both workspaces and context are just too "smart". These words (particularly contexts) are really just too abstract and complex sounding you will do yourself a service by trying to look familiar. > As for tag, I don't think that is fully correct. AFAIK one typically > first has a piece of information that is then tagged. I think in the > majority of cases one starts with items in certain collections, not the > other way around. Nomenclature is a funny thing. Nothing is ever perfect. The goal is to get users in the right ballpark. I can tell you that collection means *nothing* to me. You may as well use a word from Esperanto. > This has also been debated recently. Triage comes from Getting Things > Done, but the button isn't used exactly like one would think of triage > based on the GTD book. Calling that button "move items to sections based > on triage status" would be a bit long winded. We've considered some > alternatives recently as well on this list. > I suspect most people have not read GTD, and to those people, triage is confusing. If you ship a GTD book with chandler it might be different, but baring that, chandler needs to stand on its own and be understandable and unintimidating. The truth is there are many people (trust me on this) that don't even know what the word "triage" means in the real world. Don't be too smart. > Triage is also used in other than GTD contexts where it seems to mean > sorting based on priority etc. > The then sorting by priority sounds like a fine description. > The triage button does not sort. It moves items into the sections based > on status. Can you explain how this is different from sorting? Hank _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
