Plasma Mobile Components -> Kirigami (?)

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Wed, Feb 24, 2016 at 10:52:08PM +0100, Thomas Pfeiffer wrote:
> > > It is physical, it is creative, kinda playful without being childish, and
> > > it's far less common than Origami, which helps with searchability.
> > 
> > I'm always dismayed when projects have names of existing real things.
> > Especially in the early days that makes searching for answers such a
> > pain...
> 
> I hadn't read your reply yet when I sent a mail to the subsurface list asking 
> about your opinion, but hey, might as well reply right here, then ;)

That's how these things always go. No worries.

> Yes, using a name that already exists makes searchability always a bit harder, 
> but hey, subsurface is a real word, and it seems like you guys got your SEO 
> pretty well ;)

Having Linus mention the project many many times helps, I think :-)

> Seriously, though: If we make sure that any queries with Kirigami + anything 
> related to GUI design or development ends up on our site, we should be fine.

Yes, my statement above was more generic. I think Kirigami is an unusual
enough term that this won't be too big a problem.

> > Can you give a few example usages?
> > 
> > I smoked some Kirigami but I can stop anytime...
> > 
> > More seriously, would you expect us to write "Subsurface-mobile is based on
> > Kirigami"? "... uses Kirigami"?
> > "... is a Kirigami project"?
> 
> Good point!
> Since Kirigami is the whole thing, the technical components may indeed need an 
> additional qualifier.
> We're not exactly sure whether "components", "controls", "widgets", 
> "framework" or "blocks" would work best, though.
> What would you most clearly associate with the things you're using (ignoring 
> for a moment that they're currently called components)?

I think I'd call them Kirigami Controls (similar to the QML Controls)

> Alternatively, we might just not define the qualifier ourselves but let people 
> choose whatever they like.
> So you could say "Subsurface uses Kirigami components" or "...the Kirigami UI 
> framework", but you can also say "Subsurface follows the Kirigami UI design".
> 
> Would you prefer us to define the qualifier for the UI elements, or would you 
> prefer to choose whatever you like to use with Kirigami?

I think it would be wise if you defined how you want projects to express
the fact that they are using what used to be called the "mobile
components". That is more likely to create consistency in the
nomenclature.

Unless you create something unworkable ("based on the amazing work of the
KDE - nay - Plasme - nay - Kirigami team with eternal gratefulness to
their amazing wisdon and design brilliance" might be hard to enforce) I'm
sure that most projects would simply use the suggested language. We
certainly would.

/D