Re: [Tails-ux] Terminology for the web assistant: different …

Supprimer ce message

Répondre à ce message
Auteur: sajolida
Date:  
À: Tails user experience & user interface design
Sujet: Re: [Tails-ux] Terminology for the web assistant: different kinds of Tails
u:
> spencerone@???:
>>> sajolida:
>
>>> When installing Tails onto a USB stick from Windows, and for the time
>>> being, you need to go through two USB sticks:
>>>
>>>   A. The first one being installed using UUI from pendrivelinux.com
>>>   B. The second one being installed from the first one using Tails
>>>      Installer.
>>>   C. Then to be able to have a persistent volume you need to configure
>>>      it and restart again.

>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>>> We've been looking for names to describe those three different kind of
>>> USB stick to the user. So far we've came up with:
>>>
>>>   - "Temporary Tails", for the USB stick created in step A. We want to
>>>     push people to consider this only as a temporary step before getting
>>>     to a "real" Tails, because such devices don't benefit from automatic
>>>     upgrades (that's a security issue) and you can't create a persistent
>>>     volume on them (that's a usability issue).

>>>
>>>     Some people have proposed "pre-Tails" as well.

>>
>> Both 'Temporary Tails' and 'pre-Tails' make sense. 'Almost Tails',
>> Not-quite-yet Tails', and 'Baby Tails' come to mind, and are quite fun,
>> but are not too useful in communicating the level.
>
> I don't like "pre-Tails" very much, I find it too a technical kind of term.


So do I. I'll stick to "temporary Tails" for the time being.

I also thought about the metaphor of the "seed" but couldn't come up
with anything really working.

>>>   - "Minimal Tails", for the USB stick created in step B. We want to
>>>     convey the idea that this is a good-enough Tails but with limited
>>>     features: you have automated upgrades but no persistence, though you
>>>     can create one on the same device if you want.

>>>
>>>     Some people have proposed "Tails" only for this one.

>>
>> 'Minimal Tails' suggests minimal functionality, which is not the case.
>> 'Tails w/o Storage' might be more appropriate. 'Tails' makes sense in
>> this case. 'Good-enough Tails' is fun, too.
>
> Here I agree that one should call this Tails what it is. If it's only
> about storage, one should call it like this. If, in the future there are
> other functionalities which are not available on this medium, then I
> would be more in favour of calling it "Minimal Tails", "Tails" or
> "Simple Tails".
>
>>>   - "Full-feature Tails", for the USB stick created in step C. This one
>>>     benefits from automatic upgrades and has a persistent volume
>>>     configured.

>>>
>>>     Some people have proposed "Tails with persistence" for this one.

>>>
>>
>> 'Tails w/ Storage' vs 'Tails w/ Persistence' seems most universally
>> comprehendable. Seeing that this is the same level as 'B.', adding "w/
>> Storage" to "Tails" seems appropriate. Otherwise, 'Maximum Tails' seems
>> fitting, though isn't very proper.
>
> I would say that Tails without persistence is not less than
> "full-feature". It depends on the use case what full and minimal /
> simple means, no? Full feature sort of suggests that you need this to
> have everything. So maybe we can find a term which is not quantitative
> here and not oppose "minimal" and "full"...


Thank you for commenting on this. The more I read you the more I'm
convinced that we should use:

- "Tails" for whatever flash media installed by Tails Installer (with or
without persistence)
- "Tails with persistence" for such a "Tails" with a persistence
(or another term derived from "persistence", but that's another topic).

We could also specify "Tails without persistence" (or similar) when needed.

--
sajolida