From: Johannes Linke <johannes.linke_at_gmx.de>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2011 08:22:46 +0200

Am 29.08.2011 02:22, schrieb Jonathan Gordon:
> 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.
>
As users will need Settings way more often than System, it seems absurd
to give System a higher priority and move Settings one level down.
Received on 2011-08-29