4 ms·
Naming things so that people can try to understand what they are and do from the name is the most fundamental act of UX. I feel like too much software goes for
by Jgrubb 5y ago
Naming things so that people can try to understand what they are and do from the name is the most fundamental act of UX. I feel like too much software goes for a cute brand name, marketing approach.
- bonoboTP 5y agoDo you think the same applies to other products too or just software?
- kaba0 5y agoWhat is a Linux? Android? Google? We are not living in a neatly planned world, can’t just name things General Kernel(tm), General Mobile OS and Search Engine. And people like to give names to even inanimate objects, it is marketing, but at the same time you do remember them better that way. Would you rather start Image Editor, or Photoshop? In the former case it may very well just be Paint, while you do know what to expect from the latter. Also, should we as well get rid of icons/logos?
- II2II 5y agoAs a product name, MacOS did not exist until version 7.5 if I recall correctly. Prior to that, it was Macintosh System Software, the system software, or simply System <version number>. Neither icon, logo, nor typeface were associated with the system software throughout most of that period. That seems very out of place for a company that is very much conscious of the value of brand image.
- kaba0 5y agoI’m fairly sure people referred to it as Macintosh, simply.
- II2II 5y agoQuite possibly. The 80's and 90's were an awfully a long time ago, so I can only refresh my memory from what's on the screen and in the manuals. For what it's worth, the about box on my older PowerBook shows "System Software 7.1" and the manual simply says "system software" (i.e. not a proper noun).
- User23 5y agoWhen I started using the Mac, System and Finder had their own versions. So power users would say something like I’m running System 3.2 and Finder 5.3.