On 28/09/2007, MC <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > we could just as well call it something generic like the "OpenSolaris > > Desktop" > > I don't agree with that at all. Indiana uses a product called the GNOME > desktop for its desktop. It isn't anywhere near the stage of having an > audience (like the physically or mentally handicapped) that needs simplified > names for applications and systems. Calling GNOME anything other than GNOME > not only does a disservice to GNOME, but it also complicates the product. > > It complicates the product for users (what happens when a user looks for > support for something that only exists in name? How long until they google > the fact that JDS=OSD=GNOME, if ever?), it complicates the product for > developers (Hi there I'm an OpenSolaris Desktop developer. I develop GNOME?), > and it complicates the product in an unforeseeable number of unforeseen ways. > Did the people who chose to name the GNOME-at-Sun project the Java Desktop > System understand how their choice would be dropped like a rock in 2007? > > I really believe in having reasons for doing things. Vanity or "because we > can" doesn't do it for me. So unless you have a stellar reason to call a > cigar an OpenSolaris Medium Smoke Tube, I say quickly forget the notion and > move on.
I think this has to be balanced (within reason). For example, it makes perfect sense for a distribution offering only one browser (by default) to label that web browser "Web Browser" instead of FireFox (RedHat does this as an example). Mind you FireFox is still there as a tooltip or something else, but it helps bring consistency to the desktop. For example, and for the love of <insert deity here> no flames for this, I would think most usability experts consider a certain desktop's obsession with naming everything "kSomeRandomWords" not particularly helpful. GNOME is just as guilty too "Eye of GNOME??!?! what is that? Sounds like spyware!" Many distributions have chosen (logically) to label it "Image Viewer" instead. If you present the user with something called "kZumpJu!" they'll have no idea what it is unless they've used "kZumpJu!" before. Labeling it "Contact Organizer (kZumpJu!)" is obviously a better choice (out of many) from a usability perspective. It is probably fine to present the user shortcuts, etc. with a generic name, but once the application is launched, its original branding should remain intact (assuming it is tactful, meets local requirements, localization, etc.). The big thing that many GNU/Linux distributions lack today is a feeling of consistency. Too many of them go to one extreme or the other and end up with a mess. That's one of the reasons I think Windows and OS X are so successful. The names of software that come with the system indicate their purpose and make their usage almost obvious. For example, iMovie obviously has something to do with...movies! Windows Media Player(TM) plays...media files! These are just some example of cases where someone had their "usability hat" on when choosing a name. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "Beware of bugs in the above code; I have only proved it correct, not tried it. " --Donald Knuth _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
