Forwarded from test list.
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: "John Dulaney" <j_dulaney(a)live.com>
To: "Fedora QA" <test(a)lists.fedoraproject.org>
Sent: Sunday, June 5, 2011 8:28:45 PM
Subject: RE: Proposal: Too similar application names
> 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.
I agree, this is a good starting point. I don't really see the point of the popups,
but if other folks think they're necessary, I won't argue.
> 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.
In theory, the technical side should be a thirty second fix. The issue would
be deciding new names. Some things shouldn't be too difficult, such as
renaming Software Updates to Software Sources.
> 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.
I wonder if this should be a QA test? It would help with improving the
end product for us to check things like this, but it is also fairly subjective
as to what constitutes as 'too similar.' I'm for it, but the aforementioned
subjective nature makes coming up with a clear release criteria difficult.
test mailing list
My name is Jayson Rowe, and I'm interested in becoming involved in the
Fedora XFCE SIG. I'm a recent convert from GNOME, and I'd love to do
whatever I can to make the Fedora XFCE spin a first-class XFCE
distro. I'm not a coder, but I'm willing to help users, test packages,
and do whatever I can to make the XFCE spin even better than it is.
Just looking for some guidance.
I have managed to do follow things with slim under rawhide i686:
it start CK and now user is active
usb automount works also
system can't reboot and can't shutdown, as well as with GDM.
So, for me - slim can work with rawhide.
If anyone want me to check something else, just ask.
I installed Fedora 15 Xfce spin and then upgrade it to rawhide. Honestly, I do not remember, if I
was able to use reboot and shutdown buttons.
But I am unable to use them in rawhide, they are not active.
I need an advice what to look and where.
> I agree, this is a good starting point. I don't really see the point
> of the popups,
> but if other folks think they're necessary, I won't argue.
Wouldn't have to be popups. Actually they are used now to provide a
textual description of what the application does, e.g. for "Brasero
Disk Burner" -> "Create and copy CDs and DVDs", which just seem better
than having "Brasero Disk Burner" -> "Brasero". This unfortunately
doesn't provide for the distinguishment we seek, e.g. in example of two
terminals the popups are: "Terminal emulator" and "Use the command line"
> In theory, the technical side should be a thirty second fix. The
> issue would
> be deciding new names. Some things shouldn't be too difficult, such as
> renaming Software Updates to Software Sources.
Combination of previous brings an idea - instead of modifying
application names, we could alter the problematic applications' popups
by adding a binary e.g like: "Terminal: Terminal emulator" and
"Konsole: Use the command line".
+ Both names would stay the same, so we wouldn't have do any actual
renaming and (!) we'd evade any "arguing" among desktops
+ The original explanatory use of popups would be kept
- Great for LXDE and XFCE, but there are no popups in Gnome 3 yet, thus
out of direct reach of Fedora for now.
> I wonder if this should be a QA test? It would help with improving the
> end product for us to check things like this, but it is also fairly
> as to what constitutes as 'too similar.' I'm for it, but the
> subjective nature makes coming up with a clear release criteria
I agree that deciding what is "too similar" can be a tricky one. But
for most of the current apps the problem's simpler - the names are the
Let's bring this up on today's QA meeting, I am sure we'll get a good
input on which way to go there.
The Fedora design team had a meeting today for Fedora 16 planning and
we'd like to try for a four-wallpaper pack for Fedora 16. (We can
provide a slideshow XML file for GNOME, if KDE / XFCE / LXDE support
something like slideshows let us know and we can try to provide it).
We wanted to provide a heads up so that you could account for the space
early on in the cycle if you wanted all of the wallpapers for your spin;
in the past when we've done a slideshow set it has caused last-minute
space issues: we'd very much like to avoid that.
Based on previous wallpapers and the high resolution we are targeting,
6-8 MB is probably a good guesstimate of the maximum amount of space we
might need. In the end, we may need to pull back and focus on really
polishing only one of the wallpapers; as the release progresses we can
keep you updated on what to expect.
If you're interested in following the artwork progress, we have an
artboard here: http://publictest04.fedoraproject.org/artboard/
Is this okay?
(As a favor to me, I'd appreciate it very much if you could keep me on
the CC of replies :) )
I just updated parole to 0.2.0.6 in rawhide. This update fixes some
crashes but it also removes mozilla plugin, which was buggy anyway.
We need to think about what we do for the F16 Xfce spin. Ideas?
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 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?)
as some of you might have noticed (on fedora planet) I have switched
from gnome to xfce and I like xfce very much. However, IMHO there are
issues that need to be addressed to make xfce a first class citizen. I
put together an initial list of them in my wiki space:
Feel free to chime in and edit the page (or its Talk: page) if you feel
something is missing/wrong. Since next major release of xfce (4.10) is
scheduled for next January we're probably talking here about Fedora 17
time frame. So let's join forces and make XFCE rock in Fedora 17.