Keep the name TabCandy.
Panorama is a *fantastic* name - thanks for listening!
The name again has been changed to...
OK, it seems this discussion is now really obsolete :
Tab Candy has just been renamed...
Thanks for your participation ;-)
@Pierrre: No problem - noticed your useful info on the Ubiquity feature over on the other Firefox Uservoice page - thanks.
I also put some more comments on the Mac-centric nature etc. of TabCandy in the idea I posted at
Thanks for the interesting feedback and info about Microsoft Management Console.
I agree with you that the ultimate goal in feature design/naming should *always* be the satisfaction of the user, regardless of where the ideas came from at first ;-)
We are indeed going off-topic here, but nevertheless an interesting discussion.
I'd agree that a lot of the reason that Internet Explorer has such a large market share is indeed because it is included with Windows. However, indeed, one of the problems with the OSS community is sometimes the inability to look at Microsoft software objectively and give Microsoft credit where credit is due. Often I see the opinion not to implement certain things in a particular way because it's "the Microsoft way".
As for Ubiquity, I would agree that it has the same goal as "Accelerators". Perhaps you could add some of your interesting comments about Ubiquity to my Firefox Uservoice suggestion here (I have listed some criticisms of Microsoft's implementation too):
We've indeed been waiting for Ubiquity for quite some time. I think one of the reasons why Ubiquity might not be mainstream yet is because it's a bit too command-line orientated. I also think it sort-of ignores the potential of using the right mouse button for such functions (again, perhaps a sign of Mac-orientated design from the same developer as TabCandy (Aza)?).
As for "Features that allow enterprises make large deployments of the browser across the organization according to central policy control settings.", you can centrally control the Group Policy (e.g. security policy) of IE for all users on a network from the Microsoft Management Console. See: http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows-vista/Internet-Explorer-management-for-IT-Pros
Your opinion and your obvious good knowledge and understanding of MS policy is really interesting.
It's pretty sure that my own opinion is somewhat biased by values conveyed by OSS.
After all, you're absolutely right : market shares say it all, MS has a dominant position, without a doubt, and so has IE. But this, I think, is mainly due to the fact that IE is installed by default in Windows PCs. We can argue that this will change in a few months, at least regarding browser usage in Europe : Windows-running computers will soon offer users a browser-ballot when launching for IE for the first time, allowing them to download another browser and set it as their default browser. In a few years, we'll see if IE's domination was the result of a deliberate choice from users, or not ;-)
But would current market share lead by MS mean that OSS should adopt MS strategy (incl. naming conventions) ? I'm not sure about that.
I guess that MS tendency to give a "professional" naming is largely due to the fact that, in the '90es at least, MS marketing strategy was mostly directed toward entreprises rather than home consumers.
Also, sorry, I'm not sure my English is good enough to correctly express my ideas, but... when I said "annoying", the more appropriate word I should have used to illustrate my point is "boring". This is related to my previous point : people generally find entreprise-related things rather boring.
On the opposite, Apple products, for instance, at least at the beginning, were targeted to creative people (I mean, people in the creative industry), and home users. Therefore, Apple products were intended to be more "fun" to use.
I have to admit I shifted from Windows to Mac OS when MS made its transition from XP to Vista, in late 2007. My knowledge of the latest MS products is therefore limited (used IE7 a bit, and never IE8). However, it seems that 'Accelerators' is highly similar to the Mozilla Labs Ubiquity project (http://mozillalabs.com/blog/2008/08/introducing-ubiquity/). As far as I could have read, Accelerators is a feature that was first introduced in IE8 beta 2, released August 27, 2008, whereas Ubiquity was announced and released... August 26, 2008 ! So it seems the idea of reducing the number of steps required to reach your goal when browsing the web is not specific to MS and is also shared by some OSS people, and that this idea was publicly announced at the same time by MS and Mozilla.
Well, of course, you would be right if you reply to me that Accelerators already *are* in IE8 whereas Ubiquity is still a side project that is not (yet?) integrated into Firefox's core.
Finally, I don't really understand what you mean by "Features that allow enterprises make large deployments of the browser across the organization according to central policy control settings." In my entreprise (300+ people), IT services promote OSS use, Firefox and Thunderbird are the default web and mail clients, and IT people don't have any problem at all regarding to software deployment, and/or policy / security control. I would be glad if you could tell me more about that, although it would be off-topic from the "Tab Candy" name point of view.
PS: and, after all, it seems that this discussion is going to be obsolete in a few weeks since 'TabCandy' has now landed in Firefox nightly builds and is named 'Firefox Tab Sets' ;-)
@Pierre - yes, I agree - the only current up-to-date browser with a good intuitive and descriptive name is Internet Explorer - just because 3 of the best non-Microsoft browsers (with less market share combined than MS) have non-descriptive names does not mean that that non-descriptive naming is also good.
I've also got problems with your bold statement saying "Which is the browser that a signification portion of the web-browsing population finds the most annoying ? Yes, IE." This shows what a lot of the OSS community don't "get"; personally, I don't find Internet Explorer "annoying"; positive things about Internet Explorer that should be noted/envied:
- Largest market share by a long way (sometimes though this is a hindrance for MS e.g. getting their large user-base weaned off IE6)
- Professional Naming
- Features that allow enterprises make large deployments of the browser across the organization according to central policy control settings.
- Despite a lot of people attacking MS over "web standards", much of what we call "web standards" today was actually created by Microsoft in the first place - XMLHttpRequest or InnerHTML anyone?
- The current trend of dropping the Menu bar in favour of a more minimal browser interface started in IE7.
- Several useful features in IE8 are not in other browsers. e.g. Accelerators, visual search suggestion, a zoom control in the status bar (cough! FF), and finally....
- IE8 has a lovely, very simple, automatic and colourful tab grouping mechanism that Tab Candy developers should really take note of!!
@Ethan - ""Tab Candy" isn't childish or geeky in nature. Tab Candy was created by Mac-heads. Mac software is very rarely named for what it does."
I'd, of course, disagree. Remember that FF is cross-platform software. Macs have a very tiny OS market share, and I think that things like this non-intuitive and non-descriptive naming are one of the reasons why mass-market appeal to large organizations and novice computer users is only something that Apple can only ever dream of! Though Tab Candy is not a product, and product naming does require more branding, and I'd agree though, that "Garage Band" and "WireTap" are good *product* names - being both original and alluding to their function. Personally, if I were Mozilla, I'd have called Firefox "Fire Spider" or re-licenced the "Netscape Navigator" name.
"It doesn't do what its name says it does. It cannot traverse the entire Internet (only the Web), and it doesn't explore anything."
"Internet Explorer" communicates that it allows the user to explore the internet. I agree that "Web Wanderer" might be a better name, but then IE does also offer features such as connecting and uploading to FTP sites, and features like RSS etc. do blur the line between the "web" and the "internet".
In conclusion, and to the point - Microsoft generally "gets" ("groks" for the geeks ;) ) professionalism where Apple and much of the OSS community don't - the name "Tab Candy" is just not professional for what will end up being just one of many functions in FF.
Thinking about it more, I now think that "Page Organizer" is also not a good name either. Tab Candy is merely one way to organize sets of pages - you can already organize pages using windows and by re-ordering tabs. "Tab Candy" is merely a 2-dimensional (instead of a 1 dimensional with tabs) visualization to organize page sets. My preferred name for "Tab Candy" would therefore just be a tool-tip over its icon with the verb "Visualize Pages" (a lot of terminology in the UI should also be change from saying "tabs" to "pages" IMO).
@Ethan. Thanks for your precisions about Persona and Smart Location Bar.
Also, I'm a Mac-head, maybe that's why I love non-descriptive names ;-)
Ethan Sisson commented
@Pierre: "Persona" is being changed in Firefox 4 to something more generic, unfortunately. Maybe that means Tab Candy should follow that example. I don't know.
Also, AwesomeBar is only a nickname, like Tab Candy is currently. I believe the official name is Smart Location Bar.
Ethan Sisson commented
While broccauley gives some very good reasons for changing the name (l10n being the best, IMO, and what changed my mind), "Tab Candy" isn't childish or geeky in nature. Tab Candy was created by Mac-heads. Mac software is very rarely named for what it does. Here are a few examples...
The Hit List
and finally, Voice Candy
My opinion is that generic, descriptive names rarely succeed at communicating the purpose of the software. Take Internet Explorer for example. It doesn't do what its name says it does. It cannot traverse the entire Internet (only the Web), and it doesn't explore anything. It fetches documents from remote servers.
Names that are more like clever allusions to what the software accomplishes, on the other hand, such as WireTap (records audio from applications), have a tendency to create a stronger relationship between the software's name and its purpose. Another example is GarageBand. This alludes to a concept in the user's mind that communicates much more than something like "Recording Studio" would.
Like I indicated above, I agree Tab Candy probably isn't the best choice due to l10n issues ("Candy" doesn't translate well from American English to British English). However, I don't think something generic like "Tab Organizer" is going to do the trick. This is every bit as much about marketing as it is about labeling in the software. Tab Candy is an excellent name for marketability (in the USA). Tab Sets would not be.
Maybe we can keep Tab Candy for en-US, and use a different name for other locals? We might not want that kind of fragmentation.
What are other options for Mac-like names that can set Tab Candy apart as being the special thing that it is?
I think this name is fine. So we should just keep it.
I got your point. However I still believe that a non-conventional name is a way to distinguish Firefox from other browsers. Actually, the only one browser I know that has a conventional, descriptive name is : Internet Explorer. All other browsers I know have non descriptive names : Safari, Chrome, Opera, Camino, etc. And guess what ? Which is the browser that a signification portion of the web-browsing population finds the most annoying ? Yes, IE.
Apart from all other personal opinions, you are right about naming things regarding to their function. Non-experienced users could be disoriented. Except if Firefox publishes a video and/or a description of what TabCandy-or-whatever-it-will-be-named does. Which, I'm sure, is planned.
Should a descriptive name be chosen, I think Page Sets or Page Groups is the best.
BTW, as a French man, I'm afraid I'm not able to catch Brit/US subtilities.
@Pierre - surely the name for what is known as the "address bar" in every other sensible browser is still officially called the "location bar" in Firefox. Only over-excited American geeks call it the "awesome bar" - ugh, *shudder* - the name "Awesome bar" makes me cringe even more than "TabCandy". This Brit strongly disapproves - both are sooooooooo geeky and soooooooo American-sounding. Oh, and two or three wrongs don't make a right!
Really, the only argument for the name "TabCandy" seems to be that "the geeks on here think it is cool" - sod all the more sensible practical considerations.
Tabcandy is a fine code-name for development purposes, but for integration as a normal feature in the mainstream product it is an absolutely *terrible* name as:
- not an intuitive or descriptive name of the function which the button on the tab bar is to perform
- sounds like it is a separate program that's not quite integrated properly
- sounds childish
- candy is an American expression for what us Brits call "sweets". If I hear the word "candy" I think "American"; Firefox is supposed to be a global product.
- sounds very geeky - sounds like derived from "eye candy", which is most often a geek-term for good graphics in computer games.
- sounds like it's trying too hard to be "cool" and "hip" and "young", rather than being functional and logically obvious.
I also think that there is too much focus on the word "tabs" throughout Firefox (and other web browsers in general) ever since the concept of tabbed browsing was invented. "Tabs" and the more functional "windows" are only containers for what the user is really interested in which is WEB PAGES, so why not focus your terminology on "pages" or "page sets" instead? Vote and more on this at http://feedback.mozillalabs.com/forums/56804-tabcandy/suggestions/943387-bad-naming-they-are-web-pages-not-tabs-
I would much rather have a functional name like "Visualize Pages"/"PageVisualizer", "Visual Tabs", "Tab Visualizer", "Tab Organizer", "Page Sorter", "Tab Sorter", "Tab Groups", "Page Groups", "Page Sets" etc. ("Tabs" and "Pages are interchangeable in this list, but which to use would require some thought)
Remember that there is also an overbearing geek demographic on this forum who will think that "TabCandy" is "cool". However, the average/novice user is not going to be beta testing here and is just going to look at this and think "What the £$%£"% is TabCandy" - a totally unnecessary scenario if you just give it a good-old tried-and-tested "boring" name that describes what it does.
PS: On a similar point, I also think (while loved as my favourite browser and acknowledging a name change would be difficult:) )"Firefox" is a terrible name for a web browser as neither "fires" nor "foxes" have anything to do with the web - you can read my rants on that in the comments section over at http://firefox.uservoice.com/forums/57440-firefox-4-beta/suggestions/945983-app-tabs-is-a-bad-name :)
Keep the TabCandy name i love it!
+1 for keeping TabCandy as the title for English Firefox. There are many features translated weirdly, and TabCandy could be translated as "Tab Sets" for other locales...
Good point about translation.
"a) it should be part of the browser and not be seen as some addon component"
So, what about the "awesome bar" ? It is a core component of Firefox and has a special name. Same for Persona, App Tabs...
I don't get your point here, sorry.
Keeping the name "TabCandy" would be silly because of two things: a) it should be part of the browser and not be seen as some addon component b) it is not really translatable and keeping the english term is not an option (I hope)
Agreed tab candy sounds awesome. So it should stay this way.