Re: Proposed: evolution

This is just wrong. They have quite a bit of meaning. How many Windows
(TM) users go to look for "Spreadsheet" or "Word Processor"? They don't.
They look for "Excel" or "Word". If I have 5 different "Web Browsers"
installed and showing up in my menu, all with the same icon, how am I
supposed to know which is which? We really need to keep project names
around for things like this. And yes, we are working to make evolution
simpler, but we are now UI/String frozen for 2.0. Not that there should
not be multiple desktop entries for each major component (having one for
exchange or brainread probably doesn't make sense), which show up as
"Evolution Mail" or "Evolution Calendar". In fact, there is a patch
lying around somewhere that does exactly that. But saying that generic
names is the only way to go doesn't make sense, especially when in a
standard environment, the user probably has several choices for what
to use as their web browser, mail client, address book, instant
messenger, or whatever.

-- dobey

On Wed, 2004-07-21 at 18:07 -0400, Bryan Clark wrote:
> > Letting Evolution be Evolution is
> > just fine, so long as we're not throwing in the corporate bias (Novell
> > Evolution, Ximian Evolution, etc.)
> That doesn't make sense.  Project names have little to no meaning to
> people using the applications, this is why we require functional names
> to appear instead.
> ~ Bryan

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]