From: Jonathan Gordon <jdgordy_at_gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 10:22:16 +1000

On 29 August 2011 02:04, Johannes Linke <johannes.linke_at_gmx.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> why can't you just move System into Settings? Ok, credits are not a setting,
> as well as Rockbox info isn't. But look at this from a users point of view:
> meaningful menu item names are for remembering where to look for something.
> If you're searching for settings, you will find them quickly because the
> menu item is called Settings.
>
> But who searches for Credits? Nobody. And who searches for Rockbox info? The
> only info which is relevant to a user is battery level and amount of space
> used on disk. The battery level is shown in the statusbar and in most WPS's,
> so I woudln't worry about that. And since most people do massive data moving
> with their PC, i wouldn't consider disk space used to be problematic.
>
>
> My proposal: Move System into Settings. The name inconsistency is
> negligible, as names are for remembering where to find certain things, but
> nobody needs to find System. I'm quite certain that not a single user will
> complain about that move. The only problem I see is, that some developers
> can't stand inconsistencies.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Johannes
>

I find it very hard to imagine a user who was cluey enough to find
rockbox but then not be able to find the settings under the "system"
menu. Gnome2 puts everything under "System", Windows put its under
"Control Panel". Bad names are always bad when there are alternatives.
Received on 2011-08-29