Re: Plasma naming scheme
On Saturday, January 03, 2015 18:23:07 Thomas Pfeiffer wrote: while writing up a vision for Plasma interaction, the VDG noticed that it was unclear exactly what terms to use when referring to Plasma Desktop specifically, so we thought it would make sense to clarify this. Therefore, we went ahead and drafted some communication guidelines I'd like to present for discussion: - When talking about the the Plasma technology generically, use only Plasma, omitting the 5 as that is just an iteration of Plasma. - When talking about a particular version of the technology, but not a specific shell, use Plasma [version] e.g. Plasma 5.1. - When talking about the a specific shell but not about a specific version, use Plasma [shell], e.g. Plasma Desktop - When talking about a specific shell in a particular version, use Plasma [version] [shell] e.g. Plasma 5.2 Desktop, Plasma 5.4 Active For example in release announcement we'd talk about the Plasma 5.2 release and when there are shell specific changes we could write Plasma Desktop now has addition X Does that make sense to everyone? And if so: Where should we publish it and where should we announce it? This nomenclature sounds fine to my ears. Does this need announcement? I think the Dot editors have some wiki pages with these things, but other than that, to my biased self, this is common knowledge / common sense? Cheers, -- sebas http://www.kde.org | http://vizZzion.org | GPG Key ID: 9119 0EF9 ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
Re: Plasma naming scheme
On Monday 05 January 2015, Aleix Pol wrote: For example in release announcement we'd talk about the Plasma 5.2 release and when there are shell specific changes we could write Plasma Desktop now has addition X Does that make sense to everyone? And if so: Where should we publish it and where should we announce it? Well, it's still weird as Plasma is more than a technology. Also note there's a Plasma framework. end user product and library are on a different level of abstraction so an implementation detail, relevant only for developers To me, the biggest problem with this is that you're just covering part of it here, given that Plasma is not only the shell(s) but the entire solution as well (kwin, system settings, some of the apps) or maybe not. yes, kindof the thing that we give you that just works, in the end composed by a bajillion tiny products but again an implementation detail (and if one of such components wants to advertize itself as well, for instance kwin to people who know and care what a windowmanager is, that's fine too) -- Marco Martin ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
Re: Plasma naming scheme
On Tuesday 06 January 2015 14:11:49 Sebastian Kügler wrote: Does that make sense to everyone? And if so: Where should we publish it and where should we announce it? This nomenclature sounds fine to my ears. Does this need announcement? I think the Dot editors have some wiki pages with these things, but other than that, to my biased self, this is common knowledge / common sense? Well, if it were clear to everyone, we wouldn't have taken the effort to define a naming scheme in the first place. Maybe the VDG is the only group to which this wasn't clear yet (we were not sure whether to call it Plasma Desktop 5, Plasma 5 Desktop or the Plasma 5 desktop, for example), but maybe it's not 100% clear to others, either. The broad nomenclature is probably clear at least to people within KDE by now, but we believe a good brand communication should be consistent down to details like the ones mentioned above. It probably doesn't need a public announcement, any maybe sending it to the two lists I sent it to was sufficient. I'd also update the KDE Brand Map [1] if that's the document which people who do public communication refer to. Cheers, Thomas [1] https://community.kde.org/Promo/Branding/Map ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
Re: Plasma naming scheme
On Monday 05 January 2015 01:34:17 Aleix Pol wrote: On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer thomas.pfeif...@kde.org wrote: Hi everyone, while writing up a vision for Plasma interaction, the VDG noticed that it was unclear exactly what terms to use when referring to Plasma Desktop specifically, so we thought it would make sense to clarify this. Therefore, we went ahead and drafted some communication guidelines I'd like to present for discussion: - When talking about the the Plasma technology generically, use only Plasma, omitting the 5 as that is just an iteration of Plasma. - When talking about a particular version of the technology, but not a specific shell, use Plasma [version] e.g. Plasma 5.1. - When talking about the a specific shell but not about a specific version, use Plasma [shell], e.g. Plasma Desktop - When talking about a specific shell in a particular version, use Plasma [version] [shell] e.g. Plasma 5.2 Desktop, Plasma 5.4 Active For example in release announcement we'd talk about the Plasma 5.2 release and when there are shell specific changes we could write Plasma Desktop now has addition X Does that make sense to everyone? And if so: Where should we publish it and where should we announce it? Well, it's still weird as Plasma is more than a technology. Also note there's a Plasma framework. To me, the biggest problem with this is that you're just covering part of it here, given that Plasma is not only the shell(s) but the entire solution as well (kwin, system settings, some of the apps) or maybe not. I've always missed something there, many people have tried to explain it to me, maybe I'm a bit hard. Aleix PS: thanks for raising the issue, I keep failing to explain it baltasar (kdeblog.com) or, well, we even fail to discuss Plasma in the office, where we often end up saying plasma? which plasma? ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel What we need is a way to simply describe the desktop IN AN APPEALING way that still allows for version number should the need arise. One way is going the Mac route and name the desktop things. The tricky bit there is that considering the number of releases we have this may fast become a very long list of animals (or whatever it might be). We do have a massive communications issue - on the upshot Plasma 5 is getting more and more foothold. Also sidenote, its Maybe I'm a bit thick not hard Aleix... ehm ... :) ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
Re: Plasma naming scheme
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 6:23 PM, Thomas Pfeiffer thomas.pfeif...@kde.org wrote: Hi everyone, while writing up a vision for Plasma interaction, the VDG noticed that it was unclear exactly what terms to use when referring to Plasma Desktop specifically, so we thought it would make sense to clarify this. Therefore, we went ahead and drafted some communication guidelines I'd like to present for discussion: - When talking about the the Plasma technology generically, use only Plasma, omitting the 5 as that is just an iteration of Plasma. - When talking about a particular version of the technology, but not a specific shell, use Plasma [version] e.g. Plasma 5.1. - When talking about the a specific shell but not about a specific version, use Plasma [shell], e.g. Plasma Desktop - When talking about a specific shell in a particular version, use Plasma [version] [shell] e.g. Plasma 5.2 Desktop, Plasma 5.4 Active For example in release announcement we'd talk about the Plasma 5.2 release and when there are shell specific changes we could write Plasma Desktop now has addition X Does that make sense to everyone? And if so: Where should we publish it and where should we announce it? Well, it's still weird as Plasma is more than a technology. Also note there's a Plasma framework. To me, the biggest problem with this is that you're just covering part of it here, given that Plasma is not only the shell(s) but the entire solution as well (kwin, system settings, some of the apps) or maybe not. I've always missed something there, many people have tried to explain it to me, maybe I'm a bit hard. Aleix PS: thanks for raising the issue, I keep failing to explain it baltasar (kdeblog.com) or, well, we even fail to discuss Plasma in the office, where we often end up saying plasma? which plasma? ___ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
