[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.
From: |
Nicola Pero |
Subject: |
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH. |
Date: |
Thu, 28 Feb 2002 15:01:12 +0000 (GMT) |
> > Thanks - I immediately applied what I could do without any harm - I
> > renamed 'Apps' to 'Applications'.
>
> I don't know about that...I rather like 'Apps'. 'Applications' has a
> pretentious "feel" to it.
I feel that 'App' is a short abbreviation, and so less user friendly for
non-English native speakers, and for non-computer nerds in general.
I find 'Application' much easier to understand, because it is more
explicit.
To me it's like the difference between calling a directory /libs and
calling it /Libraries, or between /usr and /Users. Power users always
understand both. Newbies and 'normal users' (and non-English speakers
too) don't like the abbreviations, because they are obscure.
I was assuming that this was the same for everyone, but I see your point
about the 'feeling' - I probably missed the language nuance.
- Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/27
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Stefan Urbanek, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Nicola Pero, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Jeff Teunissen, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH.,
Nicola Pero <=
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Jeff Teunissen, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/28
- Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/28
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/28
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Nicola Pero, 2002/02/28
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Tim Harrison, 2002/02/28
Re: Introduction, and Proposed GSFH., Adam Fedor, 2002/02/28