[Epiphany] Re: "Web Browser"

[Marco Pesenti Gritti <mpeseng tin it>]

On Thu, 2003-05-22 at 17:15, David Adam Bordoley wrote:
> Marco Pesenti Gritti writes: 
> 
> > 
> > If we need a Foo then I agree it should be Epiphany.
> > I dont think it's useful to expose the desktop concept (as intended in
> > Linux) on the user interface. 
> > 
> > Marco 
> > 
> 
> I don't think foo is necessary at all no one complains about these apps 
> which also have various other kde/unix equivalents: 
> 
> 1. gedit - Text Editor
> 2. gnome-calculator - Calculator
> 3. Gnome Dict - Dictionayr
> 4. EOG - Image Viewer
> 5. Gnome PDF - PDF File Viewer
> 6. Rhythmbox - Music Player
> 7. gnome cd player - CD Player
> 8. gnome system monitor - system monitor
> 9. yelp - help
> 10. nautilus - Home Folder
> ...the list goes on. 
> 
> In fact imo the apps that do use "app name app type" style names make 
> finding the app harder since I have to recognize some pointless code name 
> "gnumeric" when I'm really just looking for my "Spreadsheet" program. 
> 
> Using the app name in almost all cases, leads to decreased usability but 
> increased marketability (see the windows start menu). If distros want to 
> change the default menu titles, they are welcome too, but i see no reason 
> for us to break our menu label here. 

Well I guess a decision about this need to be made globally. If the HIG
suggest to use Foo, I'd say to fix the HIG or fix epiphany :)

Marco