Proposal: Too similar application names

[Vitezslav Humpa]

Hey folks,

At last Fedora QA meeting John Dulaney had a proposal concerning the issue of similar
application names we use around Fedora desktops.

For example: surely sometimes you had both GNOME and XFCE installed and went for menus to
open - say a terminal. The environment would use the same icon and a same name for both
gnome-terminal and xfce-terminal, which resulted in you opening the other app than
desired, perhaps (thanks to Murphy's laws :) ) more often than the desired one. More
examples of this are "Software updates"/"Software update"(just within
GNOME), "System Monitor" for both gnome-system-monitor and ksysguard, some
"system-config-*" utilities vs. GNOME control panel applets and more.

This is a call for having a discussion on trying to establish some compromise - on what to
put as a name in the desktop[1] file for corresponding applications around different
Fedora desktops as well as among applications inside each of those. The goal is simply to
avoid people being unable to recognize specific applications around the desktop menus
etc., which we could reach simply by rethinking the "name" fields in the
*.desktop files of such applications. 

The way KDE application launcher handles this also provides nice example for a design
solution to this problem. They use a "Generic" (e.g. Terminal) field to describe
the application primarily and have the name of the actual binary (e.g. Konsole) present in
small letters when the generic name is not unique. For gnome-shell, in it's current
in-high-development state, proposing a design like this may also be good idea. Other than
that - at least handling this by making a renaming compromise among the desktop
environments would be very nice.

We were thinking on expanding the release criteria to have one to deal with this issue,
but for sure we need to discuss this first.

Thus - thoughts? :) (Might be a good idea in having the conversation joined in one list we
are all subscribed - perhaps test or desktop?)

Thanks!
--
Vita Humpa
Fedora QA

[Genes MailLists]

On 06/02/2011 09:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
>  Hey folks,
>   
  (1) I think showing the executable name for every application is vital.

  Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing
lights .. :-)

  The gnome and kde search tools alreadys search for executable names,
so only the menu/app stuff would need changing.

  (2) Do not attempt to demand all desktops use same generic name.

   While having the 'generic' names be consistent is not a bad idea at
first blush - I think it imposes demands that would be hard to
coordinate with upstreams and therefore would put a burden on the fedora
team.

  Since we (fedora) have limited resources they could better be used on
other things than changing all the menu names every time theres an
upstream change which does follow the fedora way.

  (3) That said, generic names could be improved. To use your example,
Terminal is a terrible name. There should be recognition of the
different applications in the generic name such as:

    Terminal (Gnome) [gnome-terminal]
    Terminal (X)     [xterm]
    Terminal (KDE Console) [kconsole]

  Whether it is a menu list or a tiered menus list like

    Terminals:

         Gnome       [gnome-terminal]
         X           [xterm]
         KDE Console [kconsole]


  The optional executable name should always be available. However these
details are really 'upstream' aren't they?

[Bill Nottingham]

Genes MailLists (lists(a)sapience.com) said: 
>    The optional executable name should always be available. However
> these
>  details are really 'upstream' aren't they? 
Yeah, changing how the various desktop's launchers work is an upstream
decision (in fact, changing what things are named in desktop files probably
is as well.)

Bill

[drago01]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Genes MailLists <lists(a)sapience.com&gt; wrote:
>  On 06/02/2011 09:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
> > Hey folks,
> >
>
>   (1) I think showing the executable name for every application is vital.
>
>   Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing
>  lights .. :-)
>  
Sorry but I have to disagree here, cryptic executable names don't
belong in the UI at all.

[Rex Dieter]

On 06/02/2011 08:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
>  Hey folks,
>
>  At last Fedora QA meeting John Dulaney had a proposal concerning the issue of similar
> application names we use around Fedora desktops.
>
>  For example: surely sometimes you had both GNOME and XFCE installed and went for menus to
> open - say a terminal. The environment would use the same icon and a same name for both
> gnome-terminal and xfce-terminal, which resulted in you opening the other app than
> desired, perhaps (thanks to Murphy's laws :) ) more often than the desired one. More
> examples of this are "Software updates"/"Software update"(just within
> GNOME), "System Monitor" for both gnome-system-monitor and ksysguard, some
> "system-config-*" utilities vs. GNOME control panel applets and more.
>
>  This is a call for having a discussion on trying to establish some compromise - on what
> to put as a name in the desktop[1] file for corresponding applications around different
> Fedora desktops as well as among applications inside each of those. The goal is simply to
> avoid people being unable to recognize specific applications around the desktop menus
> etc., which we could reach simply by rethinking the "name" fields in the
> *.desktop files of such applications.
>
>  The way KDE application launcher handles this also provides nice example for a design
> solution to this problem. They use a "Generic" (e.g. Terminal) field to describe
> the application primarily and have the name of the actual binary (e.g. Konsole) present in
> small letters when the generic name is not unique. For gnome-shell, in it's current
> in-high-development state, proposing a design like this may also be good idea. Other than
> that - at least handling this by making a renaming compromise among the desktop
> environments would be very nice.
>
>  We were thinking on expanding the release criteria to have one to deal with this issue,
> but for sure we need to discuss this first.
>
>  Thus - thoughts? :) (Might be a good idea in having the conversation joined in one list
> we are all subscribed - perhaps test or desktop?) 
The desktop-entry-spec does specify Name= and GenericName= to help 
distinguish matters,
http://standards.freedesktop.org/desktop-entry-spec/desktop-entry-spec-1....

It's just that for various reasons, some desktops have chosen not to 
use/implement Name=  in menus.  I've tried to advocate supporting the 
spec for quite awhile...

-- Rex

[Fulko Hew]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 10:56 AM, drago01 <drago01(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Genes MailLists
> <lists(a)sapience.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>  > On 06/02/2011 09:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote:
>  >> Hey folks,
>  >>
>  >
>  >  (1) I think showing the executable name for every application is vital.
>  >
>  >  Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing
>  > lights .. :-)
>  >
>
>  Sorry but I have to disagree here, cryptic executable names don't
>  belong in the UI at all.
>  
On the contrary, I like the idea.  Given the example of 'terminal
emulators', I for one
want to know if its going to be Konsole, or gnome-terminal, or xterm...
I have my favorite (ie. meets _my_ functional requirements), and I'd like to
know which one I'm going to get when I click on something in a menu.

Your comment on 'cryptic' executable names simply argues that
'executable names shouldn't be cryptic'... and I couldn't agree more.

[Vitezslav Humpa]

Thanks everybody for the input!

>  Yeah, changing how the various desktop's launchers work is an
> upstream
>  decision (in fact, changing what things are named in desktop files
>  probably
>  is as well.) 
>  > Sorry but I have to disagree here, cryptic executable names
> don't
>  > belong in the UI at all. 
You're right, the workings of application launchers is completely
upstream, while what's in the desktop file is largely downstream and I
believe that what specific name is stated in the desktop file is one of
the things that are within the reach of Fedora, better said - of
maintainers of the packages that contain the various desktop files.

>  Since we (fedora) have limited resources they could better be used
> on
>  other things than changing all the menu names every time theres an
>  upstream change which does follow the fedora way. 
I agree that making a general change would require a tremendous amount
of re-factoring work spread around a huge number of packages that we
could direct in more pressing matters.

>  I think showing the executable name for every application is vital.
>  Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing
>  lights .. :-) 
That all said, question remains on what to actually do on this. In a
long term I'd suggest trying advocate that there is a appropriate
solution based in the upstream, might it be pop-ups (sounds reasonable
to do for all the desktop environments) or something based on how KDE
does it. Although having upstream to do something is, like I said -
long term. Thus let's decide on what to do about this now.

I'd say that a number of cases this relates to is limited to a fairly
small number. I am counting:
- Software Update/Software Updates
- System Monitor
- Terminal
- system-config-(e.g. date) vs. gnome control panel applets
 (and likely a few more).

As a compromise between getting rid of the problem (user annoyance...)
completely and the amount of work that would have to be done, I suggest
that we simply target these applications and modify the desktop files
so that they become distinguishable. That means in the menus and on the
first sight, whatever *.desktop field is responsible for that in particular
environments. Should we manage to push having a popup in Upstream, that
would be great later on.

Now, should we agree on this quickfix now, how to do that? Am I right
that this would mean asking the maintainers of these cca 10 packages to
change the *.desktop files in the packaging process? Do the *.desktop
files come from upstream or are they made or at least modified already
by Fedora? I suppose it would be better if they already get modified,
as then the single extra edit would be less painful for maintainers.
Still - sounds relatively painless.

We can also consider making a simple (e.g. targeting just default live
installs) release criterion that would "force" such, though I'd think
having it done on "voluntary" basis is more appropriate.

This is my thinking on how to deal with it right now technically, the
question on HOW exactly rename the app names is another matter.

What do you guys think?

--
Vita Humpa
Fedora QA