Properly identifying applications

David MENTRE dmentre at
Tue Jun 9 16:12:29 UTC 2009

Hello Soren,

On Tue, Jun 9, 2009 at 17:45, Soren Hansen<soren at> wrote:
> You think "Evince" is more helpful than "Document Viewer"? How so?

I personally think we should keep both, e.g. "Document Viewer
(Evince)". Why not have an inclusive view instead of an exclusive one?
The exact instantiation could vary, for example it could be a tooltip
displayed with the menu item.

Is having "(Evince)" in the menu item so confusing for the user?
(honest question, studies might have shown that, I don't know)

> To view documents, you use a document viewer. If we change the default
> document viewer at some point, the user's experience shouldn't change.
> They shouldn't have to know that we've replaced Evince with
> FooPDFViewer. They should just keep using "Document Viewer" and have the
> best possible experience.

This seems to me a bit theory vs. practice argument. I agree that for
the casual user, he does not care if the document viewer is Evince or

However, for a more experienced user that has started to install new
applications (e.g. FooPDFViewer), this is important. The application
*is* different in some way (even in ABrowser/Firefix case). The user
knows that he has installed the application but he does not know how
to reach it, i.e. find the proper menu item.

Moreover, it could be useful in other contexts. For example, I already
had issues with some Ubuntu administration applications but could not
report a bug against the correct package because I could not know its

Anyway, do as you feel it. I just wanted to add another user feedback
to Patrick and Peter ones. I personally think their remarks deserve
some thinking.


More information about the Ubuntu-devel-discuss mailing list