Re: Brief descriptions in menu entries
> Windows users don't freak out because Internet Explorer doesn't say "Web
> Browser" in its menu entry, nor that "Outlook" doesn't mention "virus
> propogator^W^WEmail" in its.
Windows users typically have somewhat less software installed because of
its non-free nature.
> Applications -> Internet -> Web Browser (Galeon)
> Web Browser (Konqueror)
> Web Browser (Mozilla)
> Web Browser (Mozilla Firebird)
> Web Browser (blah)
>
> What you're doing with that, in essence, is defining a third layer of
> menu, with all the added complexity that entails, with the added
> obnoxiousness of repeating the prefix for each one, making the list
> harder to scan.
This is taken out of context. The prefix will not be the same for
every entry in a given menu. It would be something more like:
> Applications -> Internet -> Web Browser (Galeon)
> Web Browser (Konqueror)
> Web Browser (Mozilla)
> Web Browser (Mozilla Firebird)
> Mail Client (Evolution)
> Mail Client (KMail)
> Mail Client (Mutt)
> FTP Client (KBear)
> ...
And at any rate, window managers designed for hard-core users are free
to ignore the genericname entry, just like they all ignore longtitle ATM.
However, environments such as KDE that already include generic names in
their menu entries can make use of the generic name field to their
advantage.
Remember, this is not about changing the title field with an immediate
impact on all systems. This is about adding a new genericname that can
be used by more user-friendly window managers that find it appropriate.
> Let's do our new users a favour and not make their lives harder.
FWIW, the one new user I have significant experience with told me on
several occasions that she wished she knew what all the debian menu
items were. She was using KDE, and pretty much avoided anything that
came through the debian menu system because there were too many apps
with non-intuitive names that she didn't know what they were for.
Ben.
Reply to: