I agree that some sort of naming convention can be good, however...
Looking at the naming conventions in other environments, it seems to
me that the dilemma is usually solved by adding a environment-typical
prefix like the "K" in KDE, the "G" in GNOME or the "i" for iLife
products. Maybe we should go for that approach.
I really, really hate this route. As someone who works in marketing,
this is just a cheap way to get out of doing any sort of thinking
about what your project/application's identity is.
I don't particulary like to rename Grr, because it has a Debian
package
and that will cause all kinds of trouble for people who dragged it
into
their WM dock. (When the development version Grrr becomes stable, I'll
rename it to Grr as well.)
I think Grr is a fine name, especially in the context of the icon.
It's a name that we can build equity in, even if it's not obvious
what it refers to. There are other names, like Safari, that aren't
always obvious, but when you think about them in the context of what
they're used for (web browsing seen as a sort of "navigation/
siteseeing through the jungle"), the name seems clever.
The way I see it, there are five tiers of naming, from best to worst:
Clever: Safari, Dashboard (relates to functionality, is memorable)
Obvious: Mail, Illustrator, Terminal (describes what app is used for)
Unique: Shiira, Firefox, Amarok (memorable)
Prefix: iTunes, Xcode, gedit (describes what app is used for, but
ties it to some "platform" or larger identity -- easily repetitive
and obnoxious: iTunes, iPhoto, iPod, iWeb, iCal, iMac, etc...)
Acronym: GIMP, GORM, XMMS (can be memorable, oftentimes obscure however)
I would say just leave it to the developers, but let's try to have
some type of document or list like what I just provided to give them
guidance.
J.
_______________________________________________
Etoile-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/etoile-dev
