I'm all for brevity. I was just changing the wording in the DP and it's a lot to type :).
Gary also brings up a good point that was my gut feel. You can upload a single file also. I expect that to be 50% of it's use. Using "multi" describes functionality people don't expect from a browse upload function but the tradeoff is that it may set up the expectation that single file upload is not part of it. I think I'm changing my mind and leaning toward Uploader. Thoughts? -Daphne On Apr 23, 2008, at 11:43 AM, Colin Clark wrote: > I vote 0 on this one. :) I always preferred the brevity of "Uploader." > > Colin > > On 23-Apr-08, at 12:56 PM, Daphne Ogle wrote: >> Hi there, >> >> We refer to the component in various but similar ways in the wiki. >> We >> have: multi-file uploader, file uploader, file upload. Eli and I >> were just talking and would like to make it's official name the >> Multi- >> file Uploader since it seems most descriptive. If there are no >> concerns with this I'll update the various wiki pages to reflect the >> name. >> >> Thanks! >> >> Daphne Ogle >> Senior Interaction Designer >> University of California, Berkeley >> Educational Technology Services >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] >> cell (510)847-0308 >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> fluid-work mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work > > --- > Colin Clark > Technical Lead, Fluid Project > Adaptive Technology Resource Centre, University of Toronto > http://fluidproject.org > Daphne Ogle Senior Interaction Designer University of California, Berkeley Educational Technology Services [EMAIL PROTECTED] cell (510)847-0308 _______________________________________________ fluid-work mailing list [email protected] http://fluidproject.org/mailman/listinfo/fluid-work
