Re: [Tails-ux] [Tails-project] #8948: Reconsider the termi…

Delete this message

Reply to this message
Author: Teqleez Motley
To: tails-project
CC: tails-ux
Subject: Re: [Tails-ux] [Tails-project] #8948: Reconsider the terminology around "persistence"
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020, at 1:35 PM, sajolida wrote:
> To understand better the context of this discussion, see the archive of
> this tread on:
> I'm putting tails-ux in copy again once but please answer on
> tails-project@???.

(IMHO, this discussion belongs in the UX list.)

> Since P1 called it 'storage' spontaneously and since 'Persistent
> Storage' made immediate sense to P7, I'm now proposing to use
> "Persistent Storage" instead.


> We also considered "Persistent Memory", "Persistent Volume", "Persistent
> Drive", "Persistent Vault", and "Persistent Locker" but both Cody and I
> preferred "Persistent Storage".

My2c - I think the term "Persistent" is good, but agree that it should not stand on its own. I almost agree with @sajolida's suggestion, but wonder if we should put in an extra emphasise that indicate 2 things: a) that the other folders are UNencrypted and b) that the persistent storage (folders) are in fact encrypted.

IMO, could use "vault", "LUKS" or "encrypted", for example:

- "Persistent vault" (indicates encryption, even for non-technical folks)
- "Persistent encrypted storage" (least tech term)
- "Persistent LUKS storage" (for Linux knowers, indicates encrypted PARTITION)


> Tails —
> UX · Fundraising · Technical Writing
> _______________________________________________
> Tails-ux mailing list
> Tails-ux@???