anonym:
> On 09/11/2015 06:28 PM, spencerone@??? wrote:
>>>> Chris Lamb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tails
>>>>> Tails (failsafe)
>>>>
>>>> We really need a verb here as I explain in my original patch. Whilst it
>>>> does remove the jargon this isn't much better than "Live" IMHO.
>>>
>>> anonym:
>>> I agree with both points.
>>
>> I don't. User interaction *is* the verb you are looking for :)
>>
>> For example, in an application list on any OS there isn't a 'Start
>> Application X' instruction on every icon, but yet we are all confident
>> that when we select any of these icons that the respective application
>> will start (boot, to be more or less technical).
I agree with spencerone on this. I don't think we need a verb.
For example, the boot menu on Mac has no verb:
http://cdn.osxdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/boot-mac-external-drive.jpg
Nor do BIOS boot menus:
https://tails.boum.org/blueprint/bootstrapping/assistant/bios_boot_menu.png
Side note: after seeing this image again and remembering that in the
future Installation Assistant we will be referring quite often to the
"boot menu" as in the "BIOS boot menu", I think I'm now in favor of
using option 2 from the mockups by spencerone. Which is:
[no title]
Tails
Tails (failsafe)
Then I'll have to find a different name to refer to this screen in the
documentation. Maybe I'll say "syslinux menu" which is the name of the
application behind it (but let's not show this to everybody needlessly).
The section "Using the *boot menu*" from
https://tails.boum.org/doc/first_steps/startup_options/ would then
become "Using *syslinux*" (in parallel with "Using *Tails Greeter*").
> Sure, context matters. But verbs do appear frequently in the context you
> talk about, e.g. in the right-click context menus for files there's
> frequently "Open" or even "Open with gedit Text Editor" as in Tails
> currently for a .txt file. I guess you could argue that such menus has a
> much larger context, so a verb is necessary there.
I guess that we need verbs in contextual menus because we are
manipulating more complex objects (files) and you can perform many
different actions on them (delete, copy, open with application X, open
with application Y, etc.). Here in Syslinux you only have to choose
between "Tails" and "Tails (failsafe)" with no choice on the type of
action performed (boot).
>> Maybe we need an icon.
>
> I doubt that would make anything clearer, especially when Tails doesn't
> have any icon strongly associated with it.
I don't think icons are useful here. Especially to distinguish the
failsafe mode.
>> Also, when in the Boot Menu, 'Live' is ambiguous and doesn't communicate
>> the intended task, while 'Tails' clearly does communicate the intended
>> task which (with the included Boot Menu label text as a second vector
>> confirming that this is a menu and you should select an option). From
>> my armchair, the action to take is hard-coded in the experience of
>> knowing you are starting a computer, so all that is needed to move
>> forward is an understanding of the options, not what action to take.
>
> If this is an argument against "Start Tails" I do not get it. :/ "Live"
> is, of course, a terrible option name. :)
We all agree on this at least :)
>>>> Did you have any specific objections to that? I'm not particularly
>>>> bothered about which verb (eg. "Boot" vs "Start"), we just need one.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Or what about verb + noun, i.e. "Start Tails" (and "Start Tails
>>> (failsafe)")? Still succinct, to the point, no jargon => hard to cause
>>> any confusion or ambiguity. The best of two worlds?
>>
>> This is good, but conflicts with actually starting Tails, as 'Start
>> Tails' is already in use on the Greeter.
>
> In the current Greeter we actually use "Login", which OTOH may be
> suboptimal in itself. It may be an artifact from its GDM heritage.
We're talking about the "future" Greeter here. Where we already agree on
saying "Start Tails". We wanted to avoid having the same label on two
different screen (and feelings like "What! Didn't I started Tails
already in the previous screen?").
>> However, Bootstrapping is the function here, so:
>>
>> Boot Menu
>>
>> Boot Tails
>> Boot Tails (failsafe)
>
> Sure, it makes sense for us, but "boot" is computer jargon. For people
> unfamiliar with that word/concept, "start" makes more sense. And if you
> don't know English at all, chances are still that you know the "start" word.
>
> Perhaps you just used this example to derive your preferred choice, if
> so, ignore this part-
>
>> 'Boot' in the verb + noun structure becomes redundant. However, as an
>> alternative, removing 'Boot' from the menu label makes 'Menu' an
>> unnecessary label.
>>
>> Maybe we need a short descriptive sentence clarifying what action needs
>> taken. In this case we would still have:
>>
>> Boot Menu
>>
>> Tails
>> Tails (failsafe)
>>
>> But explain that when presented with options it is suggested that an
>> option is selected and that by doing so they will be booting Tails. This
>> sentence will need some TLC for sure if we include it.
>
> While I see your point, I still believe that "Start Tails" is what users
> will understand best without having to understand any context. Also,
> we're discussing a menu that most users won't interact with (since it
> auto-picks the default option after 5 seconds) and it really feels like
> we're starting to split hairs here (OTOH, I'm not very used to UX
> considerations, so perhaps it's just what it looks to me). As long as we
> move from "Live" and do not pick anything with "boot" in it I'm in
> favour, even though I prefer to include the "start" verb.
