Ok I see ;-) Tools can have cool names but items in menus should be understandable by everyone including beginners.
Envoyé de mon iPhone > Le 27 déc. 2016 à 11:39, Esteban Lorenzano <esteba...@gmail.com> a écrit : > > this is a debate we have with Stef time to time: > > my side: just descriptive names that explain them selves what they do. > Stef’s side: cool fantasy names, that have some “punch”. > > After more than 2 years arguing... both arguments have pros and cons :) > for example we can have several browsers then we need to identify them and > just call them “class browser” is not enough. But of course, a newbie will > have a hard time trying to figure out what “Nautilus” means… > (btw… the world many says "system browser” and not “Nautilus” but then we > have “monticello browser” and not “SCM package browser”… and later we will > have “Iceberg” and not “SCM project browser”… so is not consistent either... > also if everything is a browser then nothing is, etc., etc., etc. :) > > … now, what I would like is a way to find tools both from his fantasy name > and function (for example: “Epicea" and "change logger”)… and a way to list > those tools/components in both ways… > Yeah, I’m aware this approach “solves” a problem by adopting both solutions > instead proposing a synthesis, but well… this is the better I was able to > elaborate :) > > Any ideas are welcome, both on what’s better and how to implement it. > > Esteban > >> On 27 Dec 2016, at 11:03, Norbert Hartl <norb...@hartl.name> wrote: >> >> >> >>> Am 27.12.2016 um 10:49 schrieb Martin Dias <tinchod...@gmail.com>: >>> >>> I do not care a lot. BTW, what about other tools in the same manu such as >>> Komitter and Versionner? >> >> It has a cool name that describes what it does. Putting Epicea in front of >> it does not add information only confusion. Versionner and Kommiter carry >> some meaning in their name. But have a better descriptive/more generic name >> would be good. >> >> Norbert >> > >
