Name & Description of Applications
 

Good day everyone :)
I've spent a while going through the testing in extras, not quite brave enough for the development one yet.

My first thought is on the naming of applications, my second is on the grouping of applications. Thirdly, Grouping of types of software (Widgets, apps, modules/add-ins, language packs etc...)

At the moment on my device i always select all - when looking for apps as there isn't many. I'm sure this will change once it starts getting populated.

1) I understand the application is the developers, and they can set the name, but i really do think that there should be some standards and a check - and most definitley with the description.
A few examples are:

• Currently : Gonvert - Unit Conversions

• Could be : A conversion utility that allows conversion between many units, with many categories like length, mass, numbers, etc.
• Currently : Maemo-recorder - Maemo-recorder

• Could be :Maemo Recorder - Use your maemo device as a dictaphone (Probably a bad example, lol)

2) With regards to the grouping of applications, i'm not sure if i should brainstorm this yet or not, but i''m not sure if it makes sense seeing languuage,sound and module addons to applications in the main list. In my opinion it would make more sense to have an addons tab when you go into the application, so not to clutter the main list?

A few examples would be:

• gcompris-sound files (I can't actually see what they are sound files for?!)
• gijten - addons
• Iconsets for OMWeather
• Pidgin - selection of addons/language packs

3)Thirdly i think it would be nice to separate applications from Widget, in a similar way to the discussion that console access only applications should be separated?

Re: Name & Description of Applications
 

#1) Poor descriptions, summaries and display names are a reason to thumb an application down; add a comment on the package or raise an issue. It's imperative for Extras to be successful that users know what they are getting, and developers often assume too much context or take a "you'll know if you want it" point of view.

#2) There have been suggestions made for application-specific sub-categories in the past, see - for example - https://wiki.maemo.org/Task:Package_..._subcategories - however, this requires quite a large change to HAM.

#3) I disagree. Why does a user care if it's a widget or an app? Surely they want some *functionality*.

Re: Name & Description of Applications
 

Thanks Jaffa, useful reply.

1) i will try to do so :)

2) Ahhh fair enough - would still be useful though :) Tis a mini-pain having to filter past the mods/extras/packs etc...

3) I care :) And i'm a user - might be the only one though :( - There are times when a widget would be useful compared to a full app - just think it'll be easier to separate them into categories instead of throwing them all together

Re: Name & Description of Applications
 

FYI the current description of Maemo-recorder is not following the Debian packaging policies:

"Do not include the package name in the synopsis line."[1]

Anyway that app is already deprecated.

[1] - http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-pol...s-descriptions

Re: Name & Description of Applications
 

If you are talking about in extras-testing, I would have to disagree with that. Make a comment about it or raise a bug but don't thumb it down because of a bad description as it's not a blocker. It's inconvenient similar to a bad UI but it's not something to stop an app from getting to extras.

Re: Name & Description of Applications
 

The place to discuss this is the maemo-developer threads:

http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...er/022386.html
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...er/021797.html
http://lists.maemo.org/pipermail/mae...er/021643.html

I strongly believe that users (and testers) should know what they're getting. If an author can't come up with something better than a one-line summary of their application, WTF should I waste time testing it?