Re: Debian menus policy
Erik Steffl <steffl@bigfoot.com> writes:
> Brian Nelson wrote:
> >
> > Craig Dickson <crdic@yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > > Brian Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > > The verb forms felt weird at first, but I think they may be a more
> > > > logical choice.
> > >
> > > What does logic have to do with it? The meaning is the same either way.
> > > It seems to me like an aesthetic preference.
> >
> > Duh, for the reason the original poster said that you conveniently
> > snipped:
> >
> > "The main reason I presented the titles in verb form was to emphasize
> > function as the basis of classification..."
>
> well, I don't think it makes much sense. e.g. viewers do not have much
> in common, you are not likely to be interested in them as a group (IMO).
> I like the other approach that takes into account relevant functionality
> (dividing programs accross their main domain of work (e.g. email, sound,
> file manager etc.). But as was already posted you can have both
> categories...
I *hate* classifying anything into categories, because there's always
grey areas. It becomes an arbitrary, ambivalent mess. What's
something that's both an editor and email client? Or file manager and
web browser?
Maybe functional classification isn't the best idea, but it's
certainly better than arbitrary categories.
> > Furthermore, it's more logical to search through a menu that matches
> > your thoughts, like editing->text->...
>
> IMO the thought starts with specific part, not with generic part. I
> don't feel like editing, I feel like being intersted in piece of text
> first. Or game. or whatever specific. not generic viewing, editing
> etc...
Good point.
> overall IMO it's slightly more complicated and we need to figure out
> which possible consistent clasifications exist and go from there.
I'd say that's an impossible task.
--
Brian Nelson <nelson@bignachos.com>
BigNachos@jabber.org
http://bignachos.com
Reply to: