[Tails-ux] Help needed: Nautilus Wipe progress dialog title

Hi,

>> sajolida[at]pimienta.org:
>> So in the end we are not proposing to change much to the actual
>> interface. Hurray! Maybe only:
>>
>> 1. To go back to the initial concern from intrigeri, the title of the
>> dialog shouldn't be "nautilus" but "Wipe Files" instead (as suggested
>> initially by intrigeri. Plus, we get rid of "third-party" names. Or
>> maybe "Wipe" only in both cases (wiping files or disk space) to be
>> shorter. The message in the dialog box would remain the same.
>>
>> 2. Change "diskspace" to "disk space". Unless someone provides a
>> better reference.
>>
>> 3. Change the "Wipe" option of the right-click menu for files to "Wipe
>> File" for a single file and "Wipe Files" for folders or multiple
>> files.
>>
>> 4. Discuss whether "empty" is better than "available" in "Wipe
>> available disk space".
>>
> diddly-squat@???:
> IMO "available" as is currently used in Tails for the menu selection
> works quite nicely.
>
> Changing "Wipe" to "Wipe files", changing "Wipe available diskspace" or
> "Wipe available disk space" (because there is no English word diskspace
> as MS rightly contends)
>

We do retain the right to create words, should we choose to do so.
However, 'Disk Space' seems most appropriate given the task it
accomplishes - to communicate the space available on a disk - though the
use of 'Disk' could be challenged given the prevalence of flash storage
media.

>
> leave only the task or eliminating the
> completely unnecessary term Nautilus. A term that because of it's
> juxtaposition among the UI adds to confusion.
>

Only if one is unaware of Nautilus being the filemanager, which, since
it isn't as clear as 'Finder', in MacOS, most might be. 'Tails Wipe' or
'Wipe' seem appropriate.

>
> Also, the fact that
> when selecting help for the Nautilus Disk Wipe it states "configuring"
> which makes it sound much more daunting than simply telling the user
> what the selection mean.
>

It is what the selection means, configuring the disk space is what is
happening, especially since the technical approach taken is the
rearranging or reorder of bits, not an actual wipe in the physical
sense. However, given the consensus on 'Wipe' as the action, the
variance of descriptions does become confusing and very unclear,
especially for non-technical people who would most likely think: "I
guess I want to wipe disk space. WTF is Nautilus? Why is it configuring?
Configuring what? I hope it's the space on my drive."

>>
>> PS1: Diddly-Squat, GNOME people spell it in full caps. Don't ask me
>> why but I've heard that they get pissed off otherwise :)
>
> Yes, they get pissy about it because they've trademarked the acronym
> (GNU Network Object Model Environment) by adding TM after it.
> Maintaining and defending a trademark requires consistent usage I((as
> well as the TM indicia). In litigation, if you haven't consistently
> used
> your mark, and defended its use, you can lose protection.
>
> Someone should
> trademark Tails (all it requires is the indicia (TM) after it (and you
> seem too be using it consistently). Actually a professional writer
> would just do it and notify management, or at least question why it
> wasn't being done. A registered trademark uses the letter R in a
> circle.
> But registering trademarks is another issue, and I believe country
> specific.
>

Stealing words from society is what a trademark is. Not much different
from other intellectual property. However, consistant and valuable
usage is important, especially in a free market. Others could use
'Tails' in this case, but, unless they are placing more value behind the
name, they wouldn't gain any traction. The downside is if we took this
super idealistic stance, others could register the trademark, or simply
use TM appropriately.

Also, you don't have to use TM or ®, just provide adequate notice of
"ownership" of what I believe would be considered a "Coined" mark, such
as in a trademark section, though it could be considered an "Arbitrary"
mark due to the use of the word in english to describe an animal
appendage.

In the US, the mark, if registered, is good for 10yrs, and incontestable
after 5yrs. I do not know about international laws, though,
theoretically, this "ownership" can last for eternity, even with just an
unregistered trademark, TM. I would sure hate to see Tails™ everywhere,
a dedicated place on the website would be most appropriate, so that the
trademark could be as free as the product itself.

>>
>> PS2: Diddly-Squat, I would be very interested in reading more style
>> guides. You mentioned that you don't like the one from Microsoft and
>> that's the one I've been using when GNOME was not enough. Feel free to
>> send me more pointers in private (or on tails-ux for the pleasure of
>> everybody).
>
> In all truthfullness I have never studied the MS style guide. I do know
> some companies use it. I'm sure it's a fine guide. A quick look up
> shows its about 500 pages or so in length, so it must cover some
> depth. If you've been using it, I would suggest continuing so as to
> not have major rewrites due to style issues - you not being a
> professional writer I won't hold it against you personally!
>
> My only dislike of it is
> based upon my personal disdain for the company. I am prejudice
> against MS, I'll confess!
> But, in all reality it's probably excellent.
>

It is, especially lately. They make junk, but it is becoming more and
more beautiful junk, at least typographically.

>
> After all, it's not about what is right or wrong, it's very simply
> about
> (consistent) style. One can actually make one's own style guide.In
> fact I have recently (a small one, then I defaulted to the technique
> decscribed further down).
>

I would encourage us to be designing Tails, not GNOME or anything else.
Using the styleguides as a reference or as insight into architectural
layout or element/text composition/usage is cool, but copying is no good
and will lead to a product that is not Tails, eventually requiring this
presumably avoided redesign. Also, it allows us to fall into the trap
of blind conformity, by using industry standards as resolutions though
common logic would instruct us otherwise.

>
> Any style guide is primarily used for consistency. Journalism has it's
> own "standard" styles, one being the AP (Associated Press) style guide.
> But, journalistic writing is very different from technical writing.
>
> Most often in the tech realm, companies make their own style
> guide for things that they deem better for their corporate or
> industry specific needs. They go into as much depth as they can
> with their resources - or until they just can't stand the tedium of it.
> Larger companies have a Style Committee.Then, everything not covered in
> their guide, they tell the writers to refer to another style guide,
> very
> often the Chicago Manual of Style. I wouldn't be surprised if even MS
> states that for anything not covered in their style guide you should
> refer to the Chicago Manual of Style. The Chicago guide is about 1000
> pages in length, last time I checked.
>

Chicago Manual of Style access is sold, though I remember having access
to some resources they make available. You can torrent it, though,
since it should be free accessible to communicate in the most agreed
upon manner.

Wordlife,
Spencer