{#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
{#} To reply to the author, write to Eric Peyton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Sunday, November 11, 2001, at 05:42 PM, Sander Niemeijer wrote:
> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> {#} To reply to the author, write to Sander Niemeijer
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> How about using 'User ID' and 'Nickname'.
No - as I have said before - Nickname is completely overused. (Nickname
in ICQ is different than nick on irc, neither of which exist for AIM,
etc.)
I am leaning toward "Service Name" and "Display Name" right now.
>
> I would also prefer an option for the ICQ part to retrieve the nickname
> a remote user has set. Currently Fire uses the UIN of ICQ if the
> nickname within Fire is left blank. I would like it to use the nickname
> the remote user has set in his preferences if I leave the nickname part
> blank. Is this possible?
Not at this time.
Eric
>
> Grtngs,
> Sander
>
> On zondag, november 11, 2001, at 10:57 , Erik Smartt wrote:
>
>> {#} Replies are directed back to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>> {#} To reply to the author, write to Erik Smartt
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>>
>> Thanks for the great feedback on this issue... it definitely sounds
>> like the labels could use a little tweaking.
>>
>> >... "Screen Name" is not universal, and therefore only really clear
>> to AIM users.
>>
>> Since I only use a few of the services, can we compile a list of what
>> all the services call their user handle? Having the full list will
>> help us make a better decision about the label.
>>
>> AOL == Screen Name (and Buddy Name because of the use of "Buddy
>> List")
>> Yahoo! == Yahoo! ID
>> Jabber == generally referred to as an "Account" in the documentation
>> MSN == ??
>> icq == ??
>> IRC == ??
>>
>>
>> >And, who's to say I am using someone's real name as their display
>> name.
>>
>> I thought about this too, because I use nicknames in that field too.
>> The thing about it though is that you are trying to inform the user as
>> to the nature and functionality of this field, therefore the label
>> does not have to be literal, but rather reduce mistakes and explain
>> the nature of the field and it's content. I chose "Real Name" for my
>> build to create a distinct separation between it and the Screen Name.
>>
>> The real question is whether it would confuse a general user if they
>> prefer to call someone by something other then their legal name. I'm
>> not convinced that it would; however, after running way too many
>> usability tests over the years, I am fully aware that users will
>> continually surprise you with their behaviors interacting with
>> technology.
>>
>> I'll ask a question back then... many email clients use Full Name /
>> Real Name as a form element when setting up your account (which I see
>> most people on this list have filled in.) Did that label ever give
>> you the impression that you HAD to put your full name in there? Have
>> you ever put something other then your full name in there and doubted
>> whether the application would work? I'm guessing that such a label
>> wasn't viewed as strict as it implies, although the people on this
>> list are also developers and technology enthusiasts, so I would expect
>> a comfort level in which you would bend the rules on this one.
>>
>> >How about "Remote System ID" and either "Nickname" or "Display Name"
>>
>> "Remote System ID" is *way* too technical for a UI label; However
>> "Display Name" is a good suggestion as an alternative to "Real Name".
>> It is a little vague, but it does help create the association between
>> this field and it's functionality in the application.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> -- Erik
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>>
>>
>
>
> {#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
>
>
{#} ----------------------------------------------------+[ fire ]+---
