<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN"> <html> <head> <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type"> </head> <body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000"> I like the idea of App name - function, or Function - app name. Either way. There are enough hard-to-pronounce app names in the Linux world that it should be required to list the app function along with the app name. Even listening to Linux podcasts, there is never any consensus on how to pronounce various apps, DE's, distros, etc. I also agree about Evince being mis-labeled as a "document" viewer when in reality it is a PDF file viewer. Back to the original poster's comments, I would like Totem Movie Player to be called just that, rather than Movie Player. Why? Totem has a Youtube plugin that I often use rather than navigating to youtube.com. I know Totem does this, but it doesn't say Totem in the menu entry. I often get Movie Player mixed up with Mplayer, so usually on my installs, I manually rename Movie Player to Totem Movie Player. Patrick Goetz wrote: <blockquote cite="mid:4A2E76B2.3050903@mail.utexas.edu" type="cite"> <pre wrap="">It looks like no one responded to the concern raised below. It makes sense to me that all applications should be identified by their name as well as their function in gnome GUI menus. Furthermore, not doing so frequently increases confusion for naive users. For example, due to ongoing bugs with the linux acrobat reader postscript rendering engine, users frequently come to our office because they couldn't print a pdf file. We tell them to use evince instead of acrobat reader. They look for a program called evince in the menus, and can't find anything. No one knows to look for "Document Viewer" -- in fact, what does this even mean? What kind of documents? In 9.04 Document Viewer appears to have disappeared from the menu, but "Image Viewer" is still there. The default image viewer used to be Eye of Gnome, but this appears to be something different -- since the menu is non-standard, one can't tell from the application itself; the only way to find out is to dig through /usr/share/applications. When the command line is more user friendly than the GUI, this should set off those little alarm bells that something needs to be done differently. Of course the complication in the linux world is the plethora of choices which exist for each application type, especially on larger networks like ours where users are strongly opinionated about which {editor, compiler, pdf viewer, image viewer, browser, etc.} is the best one and must be installed. How to create a manageable user experience for the less knowledgeable user in the presence of dozens of choices for each task? I'm not sure what the answer is at the moment, but a no-brainer choice is to clearly identify WHAT application is being invoked from the menu. </pre> <blockquote type="cite"> <pre wrap="">Date: Sat, 6 Jun 2009 13:41:43 +0100 From: Peter Berry <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:pwberry@gmail.com"><pwberry@gmail.com></a> Subject: Using functional descriptions for default applications' menu entries To: <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com">ubuntu-devel-discuss@lists.ubuntu.com</a> Bug 105685 (<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem/+bug/105685">https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/totem/+bug/105685</a>) was recently rejected again, on the grounds that "it's not a bug", despite apparent consensus (from my and another's admittedly biased perspective) that it is. See previous thread: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ubuntu.devel.discuss/1101">http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ubuntu.devel.discuss/1101</a> I have four media players installed: MPlayer, Xine, Totem and VLC. I find all of them wanting from time to time and if one doesn't work, it's useful to be able to try another. So on my system clearly "Movie Player" is ambiguous and makes it more difficult to find Totem. (It's also an Americanism and imprecise since it also plays pure audio - IMO "video player" or "media player" would be better.) I also find it galling that GNOME devs apparently think it is OK to say Movie Player = Totem, as if nothing else in the world deserved the name. </pre> </blockquote> <pre wrap=""> </pre> </blockquote> </body> </html>