Re: GUI terminology

[Christian Rose <menthos menthos com>]

Telsa Gwynne wrote:
> > I don't think there is a need for recurring discussions if there is
> > nothing to be added to that discussion that hasn't already been
> > mentioned.
> 
> I think there is when many people weren't even aware of the discussion.

Probably true. I wasn't aware that terminology was lately being
discussed on gnome-doc-list. :)


> That said (and this is completely independent of my comments on IRC
> earlier: I'd say it whichever viewpoint I held):
> 
> > Anyway, since the documentation guidelines will serve as UI terminology
> > guidelines (as basic UI and documentation terminology shouldn't need to
> > differ anyway), I really would like to have a recommendation on this
> > topic in the word list. It *is* a problem and it doesn't get solved by
> > ignoring it, even if it is/was an ugly and non-fun debate.
> 
> I'm of the opinion we (using "we" loosely to mean "them what did the
> work") should define as little as possible. That way we have a chance
> of people following what is suggested. Five pages and we have a hope.
> Fifty pages, and no way.

I understand your point. However, I think avoiding confusion for users
over terminology is worth it, as a possibly *slightly* more added
inconvenience for developers/documentators/translators (one extra word
to a word list) can make a huge difference for some people in using the
desktop (more consistent and less confusing). 

IMHO, specifying recommendations for "problem word" situations are worth
it, *big time*.


Christian