On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 22:55 +0100, Joachim Noreiko wrote: > --- Rodney Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-03-27 at 16:45 +0100, Joachim Noreiko > > wrote: > > > http://developer.gnome.org/documents/style-guide/gnome-glossary-desktop.html > > > > These are guidelines, and it uses appropriate > > terminology where > > appropriate. The guidelines are ignorant of the > > separation of image and > > color for the desktop background. These two items > > are not mutually > > inclusive into a single object and term. > > > > Also: http://makeashorterlink.com/?A21F13DDC > > > > Practically every movie site, and theme site, calls > > desktop backgrounds, > > "wallpaper". > > Just because Microsoft chose to use that term, and > everybody is following, doesn't mean we should. > OS X doesn't even use a term in the preferences, > except in the desktop context menu, where is says > 'desktop background'.
Point-in-case. Microsoft doesn't use the term Wallpaper in their config dialog either. The tab in the Display Properties is titled "Desktop", and the label for the list is titled "Background:". So, no, it isn't just following Microsoft. It's following the terminology used where people actually go to get these things. And I think a search result of 17.x million vs. 2.x million is a sufficiently large difference to justify the use of the term. Surely 15 million people can't be wrong. But, just as I think blindly following Microsoft is a bad idea, so is blindly following what Apple does with Mac OS. We need to innovate on our own, and do better than both of them. -- dobey _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
