Re: [Rhythmbox-devel] [patch] add icon to nautilus context menu

[Luis Villa <louie ximian com>]

On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 15:56, Mason Kidd wrote:
> On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 09:13, Luis Villa wrote:
> > On Thu, 2003-08-14 at 11:27, in7y118@public.uni-hamburg.de wrote:
> > > Quoting Luis Villa <louie@ximian.com>:
> > > 
> > > > That string (at least in English) is terribly long and a little awkward-
> > > > should it be 'add to music library' instead?
> > > > 
> > > /me doesn't mention that the HIG sucks in some regards and "add to Rhythmbox" 
> > > would be much shorter and 100% understandable to everyone who knows what 
> > > Rhythmbox is. And anybody who doesn'T know this probably doesn't want to add it 
> > > to Rhythmbox anyway.
> > 
> > I hate to beat a dead horse here, but wrong, wrong, _wrong_ thinking. My
> > mother has no clue what RB is. My brother (who is fairly computer
> > skilled, but not with Linux) has no idea what rhythmbox is. Why should
> > they need to learn/know what rhythmbox is just to add something to it?
> > The real kicker is that they both use iTunes all the time- so they would
> > definitely want rhythmbox on linux, even if they didn't know what it
> > was. Why should they need to learn a fancy brand name to play their
> > music?
> > 
> > Anyway, I hate to get snappy about this, but... we've got a /huge/
> > advantage over the proprietary OSes because we don't have to name things
> > in weird 'brand' ways to get them known. Let's use that advantage to
> > make our systems more usable than they can. 
> > 
> > Luis
> I think that "Add to Music Library" sounds best for the Nautilus
> plugin.  This is short enough that it won't make the popup menu ugly,
> and it tells the user what it actually does.  And if you happen to have
> another Music Library app (why would you - Rhythmbox is all you need!)
> the icon will differentiate them.
> 
> As for places like the panel menu, I've always like "Rhythmbox Music
> Player" because I might have more than one Music Player (gst-player,
> zinf, xmms).  Same goes for web browsers "Galeon Web Browser" and
> "Epiphany Web Browser".  For those of us with both of them installed, we
> can differentiate them (sorry, but the icons are too similar) but people
> who don't know what Epiphany and Galeon are will know where to click to
> get on the Web. But, I digress.

If your distribution is doing their job (or if you personally are sane
in installing extra apps and editing them) then you should only have one
of each of those things. :) This is a consistent complaint in every
usability study of linux ever done- 'oh, there are six web browsers
installed and I have no idea what the difference is between them.' With
simple, consistent naming and a clear choice of best-of-breed
applications, we can really make computers more usable for people. 

[FWIW, I think RB is clearly headed towards being the best of breed in
this category- if things continue on the current trend in terms of
stability and functionality, I hope to nuke xmms from Ximian Desktop at
some point and I'm sure others will follow suit.]

Luis