elementary-dev-community team mailing list archive

[Cassidy James <cassidy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sep 19, 2012 2:20 PM, "Darcy Brás da Silva" <dardevelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
>
> Ok. this is a tricky subject. From my perspective, I see a great
> advantage on de.branded apps it becomes easier to know what the program
> does.
> On the other end, That's why icons exist, to represent what the
> application is/does. Having that said, I think is far more beneficial to
> have all apps
> with their custom name, and maybe with an hover of a more generic name.

This is what Slingshot does (or should do?).

> This would not only avoid the clashing apps problem, but also make it
> easier
> in the future when other developers decide to bring their apps to
> elementary. Note that Elementary is an OS project, which means it is a
> "platform" for deployment
> of applications.

Right. This is about a single app, not all apps that people could ever
installed. The situation is like the pre-packaged apps with other
platforms, namely Android, iOS, OS X, and GNOME. But more directly this
discussion is about the email app and whether we should call it the
meaningless and arbitrary codename "Geary," or the sensible and expected
"Mail."

> So -1 on de-branding apps, overall results would only
> lead into inconsistency and give foreign look to post_default
> installations.
> On Wed, 2012-09-19 at 14:00 -0500, Cassidy James wrote:
> > I just want to re-base this discussion on Geary, as that's what Dan is
> > specifically asking about.
> >
> > I'm +1 on branding it as "Mail" on our desktop. We're sort of in the
> > process of moving in that direction. That would mean its full name
> > would be "Mail" and its generic name could be "Email Client" or
> > something (I'm not suggesting specifics, just that we should make them
> > different). I am pretty sure we're not moving to make Slingshot
> > display only generic names, and that's not what this discussion is
> > about.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Cassidy James
> >
> > On Sep 19, 2012 1:36 PM, "Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff"
> > <sergey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >         I'm all for using debranded apps too, but switching to showing
> >         GenericName instead X-GNOME-Fullname alone is not sufficient.
> >
> >         Okay, let's say we have debranded apps. Now Totem is "Movie
> >         Player" and Audience is too. What happens if elementary OS
> >         user installs Totem or Ubuntu user installs Audience? They get
> >         two "Movie Player"s with the same icons which are in fact
> >         different apps.
> >
> >         So *if* we go for it, we'll also have to make Slinghot detect
> >         and handle such collisions: either show X-GNOME-Fullname for
> >         each "colliding" app (resulting in "Totem Movie Player" and
> >         "Audience Movie Player" respectively), or show GenericName for
> >         apps that are set as default ones and X-GNOME-Fullname for
> >         other colliding apps (resulting in "Movie Player" for default
> >         player and full branded name for the other one).
> >
> >         And please, read "X-GNOME-Fullname" thread in the archives
> >         before commenting on this further, it has a good list of pros
> >         and cons of this approach.
> >
> >         --
> >         Sergey "Shnatsel" Davidoff
> >         OS architect @ elementary
> >
> >         --
> >         Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
> >         Post to     : elementary-dev-community@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >         Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~elementary-dev-community
> >         More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> >
>
> --
> Darcy Brás da Silva <dardevelin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>