ubuntu-manual team mailing list archive

[Tony Pursell <ajp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 11 July 2012 16:25, <jimandmarcy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I believe our path to a resolution lies not in what >we< think is right,
> or what a majority of a group thinks is right, but what the end user thinks
> is right.
>
> Let me explain.
>
> There are several shades of blue (electric blue, navy blue, indigo
> blue...to name a few). But generally, these variations of blue are accepted
> as "blue" for (and because of) a variety of reasons. But then we have CYAN.
> Is it blue? Well, to a generalist, yes. To ME, yes. But to a lithographer,
> or a printer manufacturer, or a photographer, or a user replacing a printer
> cartridge, CYAN is a very specific color mix, so to them, and for their
> purposes, and in their opinion, CYAN is NOT blue. Printer manufacturers
> have labeled this color as CYAN, all the printer cartridge manufacturers
> call the color CYAN, therefore, the user searches for a replacement CYAN
> (not BLUE) printer cartridge.
>
> My point.
>
> We may say the "top bar" represents one thing while the "menu bar"
> represents another, and we can debate about the denotation and connotation
> of the identifiers, but we've not asked the (arguably) more question yet
> "what is generally accepted?" And by answering that question, we will know
> what the user will expect, and by knowing what the user expects, we'll all
> be speaking the same language. While the "Ubuntu Manual Project" is an
> excellent resource filling a specific niche market, it is not a "definitive
> guide to using Ubuntu". The UMP is a generalist publication for those
> wanting to get into Ubuntu but don't want to wade through a 500-page
> "official manual". We're more of a 150-page "quick start guide". This being
> the case, we should be in the mindset not to determine and define screen
> element names, but to support that which has already been defined for us.
>
> A discussion amongst ourselves is good, and healthy, but if we determine
> that a "top bar" is "X" while other manuals, websites, tutorials, etc.
> identify it as "Y", are we best serving the overall community by presenting
> these contradictions in print?
>
> My recommendation is that we define screen elements the same as the
> Official Ubuntu Manual defines them...right or wrong. We may even need to
> coordinate with them...or even contact Canonical directly for input in
> answering some of these questions. In the interest of serving the user
> base, it's best that all we are all 100% right or 100% wrong. Anything less
> adds confusion to the user, and, in the end, detracts from the overall
> impressiveness of the user supported documentation and--I would argue--the
> Ubuntu OS in general.
>
> --Jim
>
>
> I agree entirely with this last point by Jim.  As far as I know this was
called *the panel* when Unity was designed.  We must not go off and name it
something else if this is against the 'official' name.  Just because we
find it called by other names elsewhere, that does not justify us going off
and renaming it.  For instance, there might be references to 'the menu bar'
but that is what the similar object was called in GNOME, so the help for
GNOME applets may still use this terminology.  We must consult with the
wider community before we come to a decision on this.

Tony

PS - I cannot post to the other mailing lists...