Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

[META] Naming the native app in app stores #86

Closed
mstenta opened this issue Feb 7, 2019 · 16 comments
Closed

[META] Naming the native app in app stores #86

mstenta opened this issue Feb 7, 2019 · 16 comments
Labels
question

Comments

@mstenta
Copy link
Member

mstenta commented Feb 7, 2019 •
edited

We've been having some discussion around what to call the farmOS native app when we officially launch it in the Apple and Google app stores. Internally we've been referring to it as "farmOS Client", which conveys the fact that it is a client-side application that compliments farmOS's server-side application. But "client" is not an intuitive name to non-developers, and doesn't convey the purpose of the app and how it relates to farmOS (the server).

We came up with a few ideas in the farmOS chat room and put together a poll to get input from the community: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1sqFLO9age66wrWzD90HJBm8QpPoFwXG0VmHSgS6ySfM/edit

The choices included in the poll were:

  • farmOS Client (this is the current name we've been using internally)
  • farmOS Lite
  • farmOS Mobile
  • farmOS Remote
  • farmOS Scout
  • farmOS Field Kit

There was also a field that allowed new ideas to be suggested. We'll use this issue to document the results and discussion around it for future reference.

An introductory paragraph framed the discussion at the top of the poll:

Help us decide what to call the official farmOS mobile app that is currently being developed. It is available as a native app for Android and iOS, but is also being developed as a standard JavaScript web app, which may form the basis for a new simplified UI directly inside farmOS. One of the key features that differentiates it from farmOS itself is that it works offline, and allows you to sync records back to the remote farmOS server when you have an internet connection. Choose one or more of the following options below, and/or suggest your own.

The code for the app currently resides in these two repositories (to be merged in the near future):

https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS-client
https://github.com/farmOS/farmOS-native
@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 7, 2019 •
edited

Here is some discussion from the farmOS and GOAT chat rooms, for context and posterity:

#farmOS:

[12:39:59] <jgaehring[m]> so as i was starting to say, about the client app, I'm wondering how we want to promote it, and even, just for starters, what we call it
[12:40:37] <jgaehring[m]> it could just be "farmOS", but on the app stores, but I wondered if we wanted some kind of name to denote that, at least for now, this is just a subset of farmOS's functionality
[12:41:39] <jgaehring[m]> both for users migrating over from the Drupal farmOS, and for new users who perhaps stumble on the app w/o realizing it's a part of something bigger
[12:41:59] <jgaehring[m]> like "farmOS Field Kit" or something like that
[12:42:42] <mstenta[m]> Yea good question
[12:42:49] <mstenta[m]> I think it does make sense to differentiate it, because I think there's already a lot of potential for confusion
[12:43:03] <jgaehring[m]> right
[12:43:05] <mstenta[m]> I personally like "farmOS Client", but I'm not sure if that makes any sense outside of our circle
[12:43:13] <jgaehring[m]> avoiding confusion === priority 1
[12:44:08] <mstenta[m]> Aside from the name, we should be sure to have a clear and concise description
[12:44:18] <jgaehring[m]> right
[12:44:40] <jgaehring[m]> perhaps that would be sufficient
[12:44:43] <mstenta[m]> Like: "This app connects to your existing farmOS system to provide some useful shortcuts and offline capabilities."
[12:45:16] <mstenta[m]> Part of me thinks "farmOS Offline" would be the most intuitive - and would clearly define what it's useful for right now
[12:45:25] <mstenta[m]> But I also know that might not be a good long-term choice
[12:45:46] <mstenta[m]> "Client" really seems to be the best, to encompass the future plans
[12:45:59] <mstenta[m]> Especially with the thought that it will merge into farmOS itself
[12:47:04] <dornawcox[m]> mabe FarmOS lite or FarmOS mobile? or FarmOS field?
[12:47:15] <mstenta[m]> The drawback is it's a bit "developer-y" - "client vs server"
[12:47:22] <mstenta[m]> Hi @Dornawcox:matrix.org !
[12:47:44] <mstenta[m]> "farmOS lite" is kinda nice
[12:48:09] <mstenta[m]> I'm not a huge fan of "mobile" just because, technically, you can use the normal farmOS in a mobile browser context
[12:48:46] <dornawcox[m]> farmOS remote?
[12:49:01] <mstenta[m]> It will be really good to decide on a name though... I'm sick of saying "we're working on a mobile/offline/native/client/blahblahblah version!)" :-)
[12:49:02] <dornawcox[m]> means far away and control
[12:49:03] <jgaehring[m]> oh lite is nice
[12:49:42] <jgaehring[m]> > I'm sick of saying "we're working on a mobile/offline/native/client/blahblahblah version!)" :-)
[12:49:43] <jgaehring[m]> agreed!
[12:49:47] <mstenta[m]> "Lite" is also nice because we've talked about sort of differentiating the "advanced farmOS" UI from this "simplified" UI
[12:50:10] <mstenta[m]> How about we come up with a few choices and make a poll?
[12:50:15] <mstenta[m]> Then we can get input from lots of people
[12:50:34] <jgaehring[m]> i like the idea of "remote" too, kinda what I was thinking with the word "field"
[12:50:35] <mstenta[m]> "Remote" is pretty nice too

#GOAT:

@sudokita:

I've had this poll open in a tab all day and have had trouble voting. I think I now know why - what do you see as the main purpose of the farmOS mobile application? That would in a lot of ways influence the name, esp. given the options you listed.

@mstenta:

@sudokita: great question! I tried to describe a little bit of that in the paragraph at the top but it definitely doesn't capture the full breadth of discussion around it
In the short term it is basically a tool that enables some simple things offline
Like creating observation logs
But in the long term I hope that it can become more and more the primary UI for most common tasks in farmOS
And the existing UI (provided by Drupal) can be more of the "advanced" farmOS
Or "full database browser"
That's why we've been calling it "farmOS client"
In the sense that it is client side, and communicates with the farmOS server via API requests
Personally I like "client" because it encompasses all of that. But it's not an intuitive name for non-developers
"farmOS mobile" seems like the next best choice... It's more intuitive/standard I think... But it's also a bit misleading technically, because you can use farmOS itself in a mobile browser already
But it doesn't work offline
Whereas the client does
I like the other ones two (lite, scout, field kit) but I also worry that they are too narrow to encompass the future vision of it becoming a core part of normal farmOS (essentially allowing a simplified offline-first experience the you can then optionally toggle into "advanced" mode)
too*
But maybe that won't really be an issue, because they would be two separate implementations of the same codebase, so maybe we keep the name "client" internally, but use something more intuitive for the app that appears in the app stores
(sorry this could probably all go into the farmOS chat rather than here)
P
I appreciate you taking the time to think/ask about it! :-)

@sudokita:

Given what you're describing I am inclined to say nay to mobile, client, and lite. Client does make the most sense but I would worry that it isn't descriptive enough. Lite makes it seem likes it's missing "pro" functionality so I would also say nay to that. I do like scout and field kit though because it does make give the impression that the tool is meant for in-field use regardless of the slimmed down functionality for now, or the optional advanced mode

@julietnpn:

I concur with kita’s reasoning and voted that way yesterday :-)

#farmOS:

[13:33:28] <mstenta[m]> jgaehring: Great feedback on the poll so far!
[13:33:56] <mstenta[m]> Looks like "farmOS Scout" is the favorite still.
[13:34:22] <mstenta[m]> I like sudokita 's justification that she described in https://riot.im/app/#/room/#goatech:matrix.org
[13:35:42] <mstenta[m]> And I've been giving more thought to the thoughts I expressed over there:
[13:35:44] <mstenta[m]> > I like the other ones two (lite, scout, field kit) but I also worry that they are too narrow to encompass the future vision of it becoming a core part of normal farmOS (essentially allowing a simplified offline-first experience the you can then optionally toggle into "advanced" mode)
[13:36:23] <mstenta[m]> (Here are sudokita 's thoughts for cross-post:)
[13:36:38] <mstenta[m]> > Given what you're describing I am inclined to say nay to mobile, client, and lite. Client does make the most sense but I would worry that it isn't descriptive enough. Lite makes it seem likes it's missing "pro" functionality so I would also say nay to that. I do like scout and field kit though because it does make give the impression that the tool is meant for in-field use regardless of the slimmed down functionality for
[13:36:39] <mstenta[m]> now, or the optional advanced mode
[13:37:05] <mstenta[m]> I'm thinking: we could still call it "Scout" when we think about it in the context of including it directly in farmOS too...
[13:37:11] <mstenta[m]> or even "Scout Mode" :-)
[13:37:22] <mstenta[m]> So I can envision using farmOS in a browser, and then toggling "Scout Mode" so you can take it offline
[13:37:25] <jgaehring[m]> Haha, nice!
[13:39:51] <mstenta[m]> So question: do you think we should rename the repo to farmOS-scout as well? (in combination with merging farmOS-native and farmOS-client)
[13:40:06] <mstenta[m]> Or do you think it make sense to still use the name farmOS-client internally for dev purposes
[13:40:11] <sudokita[m]> ooo i like scout mode
[13:40:17] <mstenta[m]> And just name the app "farmOS Scout" when it is published to the app stores
[13:41:23] <mstenta[m]> (eg: the native app would be based on the farmOS-client codebase, but the app would be called "farmOS Scout"... and in the web context, farmOS would just pull in the farmOS-client library JS during build)
[13:43:30] <mstenta[m]> This question also helps to decide what to call the module that's included with farmOS... we've been referring to it as farm_offline... but maybe farm_client or farm_scout is a better choice (the main things it would do are 1) pull in the farmOS-client JS library, 2) add it to farmOS (either on a new path, or embedded on all pages somehow), 3) add a service worker to help trigger it when offline

@alexadamsmith
Copy link
Collaborator

alexadamsmith commented Feb 7, 2019 via email

@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 18, 2019

We will come to an official decision on this before we merge the repos together: #92

@jgaehring jgaehring mentioned this issue Feb 18, 2019
Closed
7 tasks
@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

jgaehring commented Feb 19, 2019 •
edited

I still have misgivings about the Scout name, particularly because it is used for other apps (I've found several), and also because it denotes a very specific farm task which our app will not be limited to. I'm coming back around to the idea of Field Kit, although that strikes me as rather generic, and perhaps a little wordy. It doesn't really stick in your head.

Some other words/ideas/randomness I'm thinking of now...

  • sprout
  • abound
  • scratch [pad]
  • jot
  • bustle
  • afield
  • memo
  • reach
  • yonder

Of those, I think I really like "jot". It's short and sweet, gives the sense of movement, quickness, utility. It also seems more to-the-point of what the app does, more specific than "field kit", but not as limited as "scout"; it's for jotting stuff down. Yea, I think I really like that. farmOS jot. @alexadamsmith , @mstenta , what say ye?

@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 19, 2019

I still have misgivings about the Scout name, particularly because it is used for other apps (I've found several), and also because it denotes a very specific farm task which our app will not be limited to.

Yea, it does seem to be a name that's already used in a few places - and I agree that we should be extra careful about limiting ourselves with the name we choose. That's partly why I've always fallen back on calling it "Client" - because it's the most general - albeit not intuitive. It's a tough balance to strike.

Here's a question: what kind of latitude do we have to CHANGE an app's name after it has been accepted into the Apple and Google app stores? If that's possible, then perhaps we don't need to worry too much about the name right now, and can try something out for a bit before committing.

Of those, I think I really like "jot". It's short and sweet, gives the sense of movement, quickness, utility. It also seems more to-the-point of what the app does, more specific than "field kit", but not as limited as "scout"; it's for jotting stuff down.

I like "Jot" - especially how short it is (similar to choosing "log" in farmOS core). My first impression was that "farmOS Jot" as a phrase feels a little awkward though (I like "Jot" alone - that's a really nice name - but wouldn't make sense to JUST call our app "Jot"). "farmOS Scout" feels better to me in that sense - and so does "farmOS Field Kit".

@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 19, 2019

what kind of latitude do we have to CHANGE an app's name after it has been accepted into the Apple and Google app stores?

Found these two answers:

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10383593/change-app-name-in-app-store

https://stackoverflow.com/questions/15720994/is-there-a-way-to-change-the-name-of-an-application-on-google-play-app-store

Sounds like it's not too difficult. But there's also a "package name" in Google that can't be changed.

If we did take that approach, then I think I would still vote to change the name of the repo itself to farmOS-client because I think from a strictly DX namespacing perspective that makes the most sense. And maybe use that for the Google package name as well.

But from a public-facing branding perspective we need something juicier. :-)

And it sounds like we could change that public-facing name pretty easily.

@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 19, 2019

So: maybe we should separate these tasks... start by renaming the native repo to client (and moving the old client to legacy), then we can close #92 and continue the discussion around a public-facing name as a follow-up?

What do you think?

@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

My first impression was that "farmOS Jot" as a phrase feels a little awkward though (I like "Jot" alone - that's a really nice name - but wouldn't make sense to JUST call our app "Jot"). "farmOS Scout" feels better to me in that sense - and so does "farmOS Field Kit".

I agree. Also, "Jot Mode" doesn't work the same as "Scout Mode" or "Field Mode".

So: maybe we should separate these tasks... start by renaming the native repo to client (and moving the old client to legacy), then we can close #92 and continue the discussion around a public-facing name as a follow-up?

Yea that sounds like a good plan.

@jgaehring jgaehring mentioned this issue Feb 20, 2019
Merged
@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

I've been coming back around to the "Field Kit" name. Some phrases I wrote down last night:

  • farmOS Field Kit: What you take to the field.
  • Pack your own kit with only the tools you need to get the job done.

The second phrase refers to the eventual hope to have client modules, similar to how Drupal supports modules that the user can swap in and out. I like the name kit especially for this reason; it indicates to me that it's not only something the user can carry along with them, but can modify to suite their own personal needs; it's composed of many interchangeable parts.

Obsviously having "field" in the name works on a number of levels, most obviously b/c farmers work fields, but it also gives the idea of remoteness, like Dorn suggested. I feel that, like "Scout", it's also possible have a "Field Mode" if we eventually adapt the farm_offline module to work like a special mode in farmOS proper.

I've also found that there are no other similarly named farming apps, at least on the Play Store. So overall, I feel like it's uniqueness, combined with its ability to connote all the right concepts, makes it a better choice than "Scout", as much as I like the fun nature of "Scout" and find "Field Kit" a little bland in comparison. "Field Kit" just hits the target so much more precisely, imo.

@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 21, 2019

All great points @jgaehring - I do like "Field Kit" more and more.

@alexadamsmith
Copy link
Collaborator

alexadamsmith commented Feb 21, 2019 via email

@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

Thanks for the feedback, guys!

I'm thinking for now to go with farmOS Field Kit for our name at release date, which I'm tentatively targeting for April 1 at this point. I think it's feasible to have iOS, Android AND farmOS.app all roll out on that date if I start now, in earnest, to get everything together for it. I'll start a separate issue as a checklist for things we'll need to have ready for app store release.

@mstenta
Copy link
Member Author

mstenta commented Feb 22, 2019

which I'm tentatively targeting for April 1 at this point.

No joke?! :-D

@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

Haha, perhaps we can just consider that insurance. 😉

@jgaehring jgaehring mentioned this issue Feb 25, 2019
Closed
28 tasks
@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

Any further objections or feedback on this? We're about 2wks out from projected launch date, so I'm just about ready to resolve this issue in favor of "farmOS Field Kit". That's already how we have it named on the stores for beta testing, and I like it more and more as time goes by. Another plus is the idea of having "Field Modules," something @mstenta and I have discussed. @alexadamsmith, speak now or forever hold your peace. 😉

@jgaehring
Copy link
Member

Talking to Mike today about other more pressing concerns, it looks like the app release will be pushed back, probably to Apr 15 or May 1, but I'm still going to close this for now since there don't seem to be any objections.

farmOS Field Kit it is!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
question
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@mstenta @jgaehring @alexadamsmith