name for contributed examples #3573

Closed
shiffman opened this Issue Aug 11, 2015 · 9 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@shiffman
Member

shiffman commented Aug 11, 2015

Related to discussion with #3524, the name "Examples" for contributed example packages doesn't seem right given it's a "sub-category" under "Examples".

Should we called it "Contributed"? "Other"?

screen shot 2015-08-10 at 9 44 27 pm

@alignedleft

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alignedleft

alignedleft Aug 11, 2015

Member

Agreed. "Contributed" works. "Third-Party" feels more descriptive, but doesn't feel consistent with language we use elsewhere.

Member

alignedleft commented Aug 11, 2015

Agreed. "Contributed" works. "Third-Party" feels more descriptive, but doesn't feel consistent with language we use elsewhere.

@benfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@benfry

benfry Aug 11, 2015

Member

We have two kinds of "Contributed" in that window, however: Examples and Libraries. Perhaps this is what you're looking for?

  • Core Libraries → Libraries
  • Libraries → Contributed Libraries
  • Examples → Contributed Examples
Member

benfry commented Aug 11, 2015

We have two kinds of "Contributed" in that window, however: Examples and Libraries. Perhaps this is what you're looking for?

  • Core Libraries → Libraries
  • Libraries → Contributed Libraries
  • Examples → Contributed Examples
@benfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@benfry

benfry Aug 11, 2015

Member

Which leaves us with this for beta 3:
screen shot 2015-08-11 at 11 09 48 am
I see downsides for most options—they're all too long or not descriptive enough or not consistent enough—so I'm looking for input.

FWIW, the file to change is PDE.properties inside the languages folder.

Member

benfry commented Aug 11, 2015

Which leaves us with this for beta 3:
screen shot 2015-08-11 at 11 09 48 am
I see downsides for most options—they're all too long or not descriptive enough or not consistent enough—so I'm looking for input.

FWIW, the file to change is PDE.properties inside the languages folder.

@alignedleft

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alignedleft

alignedleft Aug 11, 2015

Member

If I understand this, the examples for official Processing Foundation libraries are in "Libraries", while examples for all other libraries (3rd party) are in "Contributed Libraries".

Is there any reason to keep these separate? I don't think users care if a library is from us or someone else. They are all just "libraries".

So why not lump them all into a "Libraries" folder? Cut "Contributed Libraries". Then "Contributed Examples" could keep the same name or be shortened to "Other Examples" (other as in, not originally part of your Processing installation).

Member

alignedleft commented Aug 11, 2015

If I understand this, the examples for official Processing Foundation libraries are in "Libraries", while examples for all other libraries (3rd party) are in "Contributed Libraries".

Is there any reason to keep these separate? I don't think users care if a library is from us or someone else. They are all just "libraries".

So why not lump them all into a "Libraries" folder? Cut "Contributed Libraries". Then "Contributed Examples" could keep the same name or be shortened to "Other Examples" (other as in, not originally part of your Processing installation).

@joelmoniz

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@joelmoniz

joelmoniz Aug 11, 2015

Member

With respect to the too long/not descriptive enough problem, maybe we could add in something like a small description pane at the bottom? So the description might be hard-coded for each of the folders, and describe what the contributed example represents, and perhaps, later on, even parse the top-most comment of the main sketch and show that in the description?

Member

joelmoniz commented Aug 11, 2015

With respect to the too long/not descriptive enough problem, maybe we could add in something like a small description pane at the bottom? So the description might be hard-coded for each of the folders, and describe what the contributed example represents, and perhaps, later on, even parse the top-most comment of the main sketch and show that in the description?

@benfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@benfry

benfry Aug 11, 2015

Member

@alignedleft We've always thought it was important to keep them separate. Otherwise we have a situation where people perceive all contributions to be part of Processing itself, and with that, all bugs/errors/inconsistencies are ours.

Member

benfry commented Aug 11, 2015

@alignedleft We've always thought it was important to keep them separate. Otherwise we have a situation where people perceive all contributions to be part of Processing itself, and with that, all bugs/errors/inconsistencies are ours.

@alignedleft

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@alignedleft

alignedleft Aug 11, 2015

Member

Ah, well we can't have that.

Some other options:

  • "Other Libraries" and "Other Examples" (other, as in, not ours)
  • "Installed Libraries" and "Installed Examples" (installed, as in, you had to install it yourself)
  • "External Libraries" and "External Examples"

Or if it's worth it to complicate the folder structure, we could group third-party stuff together like:

Basics
Topics
Demos
Libraries
Third-Party
     Examples
     Libraries
Member

alignedleft commented Aug 11, 2015

Ah, well we can't have that.

Some other options:

  • "Other Libraries" and "Other Examples" (other, as in, not ours)
  • "Installed Libraries" and "Installed Examples" (installed, as in, you had to install it yourself)
  • "External Libraries" and "External Examples"

Or if it's worth it to complicate the folder structure, we could group third-party stuff together like:

Basics
Topics
Demos
Libraries
Third-Party
     Examples
     Libraries
@REAS

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@REAS

REAS Aug 19, 2015

Member

I'm always not quite satisfied with the term "contributed", but I think we've been using it long enough that it would be arbitrary to change it unless there's something else that's clearly better. It has the advantage over the other options that it references the fact that other people (third-party sources) have offered this. So, I think we should stick with what is currently in 3.0b4 for reasons of consistency with our language for Processing 1 and 2.

Member

REAS commented Aug 19, 2015

I'm always not quite satisfied with the term "contributed", but I think we've been using it long enough that it would be arbitrary to change it unless there's something else that's clearly better. It has the advantage over the other options that it references the fact that other people (third-party sources) have offered this. So, I think we should stick with what is currently in 3.0b4 for reasons of consistency with our language for Processing 1 and 2.

@benfry

This comment has been minimized.

Show comment
Hide comment
@benfry

benfry Aug 19, 2015

Member

All set; closing.

Member

benfry commented Aug 19, 2015

All set; closing.

@benfry benfry closed this Aug 19, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment