Re: Proposed: evolution

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 11:36:10 -0400, Bryan Clark <bclark redhat com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-22 at 04:52 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > 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".
> Ah, so because MS does it then it's the best thing to do?  or not.

Don't be so quick to claim that, Apple (iTunes, Safari, etc), every
other OS, and probably KDE does this as well.

My understanding is that the fd.o spec allows for distributors to
choose from using Name, GenericName, some combination thereof in the
Here is a excerpt from the fd.o desktop file spec:
Name	 specific name of the application, for example "Mozilla"
GenericName	generic name of the application, for example "Web Browser"

If evolution doesn't meet that, then just say so instead of ranting
about it.  If it does meet that and you are still not happy, then work
with the people that wrote the spec to change/clarify it.  It is
really that simple.

For the record, using GenericName sounds good in theory my experience
is that it breaks down quickly outside the initial (perhaps too
limited) use case that you seem to be using.  I could go through a
list of reasons, but that is probably not really appropriate for this

> > If I have 5 different "Web Browsers"
> This is one of the worst use cases, there's no reason to design for
> people wanting 5 browsers on their system at the same time.  Choice in
> browsers is great, and there's nothing wrong with having (and designing
> for) more than one.  But 5 web browsers?  5 applications which provide
> the exact same fundamental functionality?  Why doesn't Evolution support
> both moz_embed and gtkhtml in it's rendering so I can have the choice of
> one or the other?  Answer is because it's ridiculous to design for all
> that choice, apps get bloated with preferences and additional code, it's
> better to pick the best and go with it so we can actually get something
> done.
> > 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.
> Oh, I see...  Because the project names really help people understand
> what the applications do and give them a better overall experience.
> This way we can have the GNOME Desktop like we've always wanted, with
> Yelp Help, GCalctool Calculator, GNOME-Dictionary, GEdit Text Editor,
> EOG Image Viewer, GPDF PDF Viewer, File-Roller Archive Manager.
> Or maybe if we go back to putting G in front of every application?  Then
> people will see that it's been integrated.  Does GEvolution seem to
> work?
> Or we can just do what MS does and remove the functional name, this way
> we can give people the option of Yelp, GEdit, EOG, Epiphany or File-
> Roller... which one opens images?
> I bet when MS decides to use "MicroSoft-Calctool Calculator" to describe
> their standard calculator application (instead of just Calculator)
> you'll have an even stronger argument of "Look what they do!"
> > 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.
> If this is just a freeze issue then that's completely different.
> > 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.
> If you read the guidline on the .desktop naming you'd see that we aren't
> hiding all the project names for applications installed into GNOME.
> What we're attempting to do is provide a GNOME branded experience.
> Where you have your standard applications integrated into GNOME that
> take care of your basic computing needs.  These applications are called
> the exact name of the functionality that they provide *because* they are
> the GNOME brand application.  We'd hope they would do most everything
> you need, but obviously they can't do it all.
> So then you have your 3rd part apps installed like Firefox and the like.
> These applications show up as "Firefox Web Browser", while the standard
> GNOME application remain "Web Browser".  It's the idea that this web
> browser is the _GNOME_ web browser, it doesn't need to flash it's
> project name to get people to use it.  It's supposed to be the best app
> of its type and most integrated with our desktop.  When another app
> comes along (like the "Flux Capacitor Web Browser") that is better and
> the community votes it's inclusion we would remove the existing app and
> replace it with the new one.  So the "Flux Capacitor Web Browser" now
> takes the name of "Web Browser", signifying the default and hopefully
> best experience app available to GNOME.
> Cheers,
> ~ Bryan
> >
> > 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
> >
> > 
> --
> Bryan Clark <bclark redhat com>
> Red Hat Desktop Design Ninja
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org

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