Le mardi 2 octobre 2007, Charles Connell a écrit : > On Tuesday 02 October 2007 17:04, Olivier Goffart wrote: > > Le mardi 2 octobre 2007, Dennis Nienhüser a écrit : > > > Rafael Fernández López schrieb: > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > On aKademy 2007 at Glasgow I had a very nice talk with Duncan (Kopete > > > > project founder), and we were discussing about the term > > > > "Metacontact". > > > > > > > > We wanted to focus Kopete to persons. Probably Metacontact is a > > > > not-intuitive way of referring to a person (a person with different > > > > accounts yeah, but a person). > > > > > > > > The word "Metacontact" in this context is probably not needed, and we > > > > could rename it to something else, as I said to focus it more to > > > > "Persons". > > > > > > Any reason against naming it "Person" then? Technically we have > > > metacontacts that are linked to addressbook entries, and accounts > > > belonging to exactly one metacontact. Conceptually, the technical thing > > > "metacontact" is a person which ideally already exists in my > > > addressbook. > > > > > > I wouldn't name it "User" though, as this term is often not only used > > > for the person itself, but also their accounts. > > > > Eh, great topics :-) > > > > I've heard one user call it "Super Contact". I liked the name, but this > > doesn't represent really what is it. > > > > IMO "MetaContact" should probably renamed simply "Contact", as it is the > > term used in KAddressBook AFAIK > > No, I disagree. The common instant messaging lingo refers to a "contact" as > an AIM screenname, or an MS Live account, or a ICQ number, etc. Using > "contact" in a way that is so close to--but yet different from--its common > usage would cause undue confusion.
No no no that's wrong IMO From my experience this is not the case. It is only the case for us, developers. I think that "contact" mean "person that i can contact", and a contact may have several accounts. ( http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/contact ) > Also, current Kopete users would be confused when a term they already know > changes meaning. That's maybe true, but I'm not really sure it will pose usability problem because the meaning is not constant right now. > > But the question is now: But how to call the subcontacts ? > > "Account" is already taken by the user account. > > In fact, why not call it "Address" ? yes, subcontact are only object > > contact for the protocol code. But in fact, for the user, they are just > > addresse of the metacontact. > > "Address" is too easily confused with email address. That's wrong either IMO. An "address" as it means nothing. It must be specified if it is a postal address, a email address, a jabber id, or a icq number. But this is still the address, isn't it ? I'm not a native english speaker anyway. I have to admit that address is maybe not the best word. maybe "identifier" ? We should not see the 'subcontacts' as object as it (in the interface) but rather as (meta)contact attributes > In my opinion, Kopete should use Contact's (as they are now) contained > within Person's (replacing MetaContact). KAddressBook calls a single person > a "Contact", which is fine terminology for them, but due to already > established instant messaging lingo, this would be too confusing for Kopete > to use. If KAB call a single person a "Contact", we should do that same, since a KAB contact is exactly the same thing as the current KopeteMetaContact. Remember the idea that Kopete is just a sort of GUI for the addressbook.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ kopete-devel mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel
