Hello,
> Diddly-Squat:
> I don't care too much either. But we should try to use the most
> common phrase, or standard phrase, if there is one.
>
It seems most appropriate to use the most logical verb to describe the
intended action, as opposed to the most common or most standard.
>
> I'd have to disagree with "clean". First. what exists now (as far as
> menu selections) is "wipe" and "wipe available disk space" which is in
> total agreement with the Nautilus Wipe program. Although I might argue
> that the "Wipe" menu selection could be more specific by stating "Wipe
> file".
>
> Whether it's "wipe available..." or "erase available..." is of little
> consequence.
>
On the contrary, though any of these verbs are close enough to
communicate the intended action, the image of the action is something
that we can, and most likely should, control.
>
> "Clean available ..." I'd have to object to for the
> following reasons:
>
> 1) "Clean" in this context is not the most commonly used phrase.
>
There is little value in using what is common if there are better,
presumably more logical, options.
>
> 2) The reason "clean" is not used it that the verb "to clean" means
> that something exists that will be improved upon afterwards. Our use
> is talking about wiping out (an American ethnocentric term), or
> erasing what was there - something completely different will be left
> afterwards.
>
A mother would disagree with your definition of clean if after asking
you to clean something you merely wiped it down. Unless clean were
added as an adverb with wiped being the verb, i.e., wiped clean, in
which case, wiping would be sufficient. Without this extra layer of
info, wipe is hard to side with. However, clean is also a general term,
allowing many interpretations regarding the approach taken to cleaning.
We are resetting binary, no? How "clean" is it after? How many passes
were taken? But maybe this is too technical to inspire a more
appropriate verb.
>
> In fear of being a thorn, I've made clear what IMO the verbs should be.
> I will cease my discussion and yield to whatever the decision may be.
> BUT, I must say that term "available" (as I believe someone
> else said) is absolutely critical in the menu label context.
>
Why?
If there is 10GB on a storage medium and 4GB is in use, when prompted to
choose to 'Securely Verb Available Disk Space', it is logical to presume
that the remaining 6GB will be what is verbed. The same can be argued
with 'Empty', e.g., 'Securely Verb Empty Disk Space'. Maybe something
else is appropriate, such as 'Securely Verb Entire Disk Space', or
something more verbose such as 'Securely Verb the 10GB of Storage Space
on Device XYZ'.
>
> On another note, which is slightly off topic but I find very
> annoying (and exists with other Tails areas) what we would call in the
> proprietary world "third party' programs. A more user appealing
> experience is to NOT have Nautilus Wipe mentioned at all. As a user,
> when I click Help (after Wipe), I only want to see the options I can
> select explained. I don't care that the program that someone else has
> integrated into Tails is called Nautilus Wipe. It only adds an element
> of confusion - WTF is "Nautilus Wipe", I just selected Wipe.
>
> Again, in the proprietary world, and what I would suggest in the open
> source world, is that the program Nautilus Wipe be what we call
> "whiteboarded" or "self-branded". In the case of integrating Nautilus
> Wipe with Tails (which has been done) a better user experience is to
> NOT have any mention Of Nautilus Wipe, which is a title or brand name,
> or I don't know what - as it has no trademark indicia.
>
I second this. If appropriate, a more Tails-centric and native label
would be nice, however, if I understand correctly, the file browser in
Tails is called Nautilus[0], so 'Nautilus Wipe' seems appropriate.
[0]
https://tails.boum.org/doc/encryption_and_privacy/secure_deletion/index.en.html
Wordlife,
Spencer
