Steve Rudman wrote: > > Steve Elmer wrote: > > > > How can file names even *have* usability concerns?
As long as Mozilla is to be used by humans, every aspect of Mozilla has usability concerns. Right down to the fact that the `prefs.js' file doesn't have the icon which prefs files are supposed to have (a page with two radio buttons on it), so it's harder to find when you want to copy or delete it. > > Regular users > > never look at them.\ Who said anything about regular users? Filenames like `panacea.dat' are pretty useless no matter how irregular you are. (And though this is not true for Windows or Linux users, for a Mac user any file which *your* program puts on *their* computer without giving it a meaningful filename -- or, at the very least, a meaningful icon -- is actually mildly offensive.) > And if I might add, we don't want "regular users" to look at the > files. This isn't for regular users. This is for the teenage grandson who is called in to fix the `problem with the computer', opens up the `Netscape Profiles' folder, and cannot understand what he sees. This is the equivalent of color-coding the wires inside an electrical socket, so that you can tell which one is which. These are the names of the files stored in Internet Explorer's Preferences folder: `DefaultFavorites.html', `Download Cache', `Downloads.html', `Internet Scrapbook', `Toolbar.xml', `Customize Toolbars Page', `Temporary Files', `Favorites.html', and `History.html'. And these are the names of the files stored in an Outlook Express profile folder: `Database', `Database Cache', `Mailing Lists', `Messages', `Preferences', `Rules', `Schedules', and `Signatures'. See? It's not that hard. -- Matthew `mpt' Thomas, Mozilla UI Design component default assignee thing <http://mozilla.org/>
