GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 681543
"system settings" name issue
Last modified: 2012-11-12 09:05:05 UTC
Something came up in user testing that is pretty interesting. One subject was unable to complete a task that involved going into system settings because even though they said they were looking for settings they didn't think system settings was the right thing. The subject hovered directly over the system settings menu item and then decided it wasn't right. There was a bit of trepidation in clicking something that was for the "system". Afterwards, I asked why? Said something about not thinking that the system was where it would be found. And seemed to suggest there was something a little bit scary about it. In our new designs we have been using simply the name Settings. I wonder if we should consider using it before we have a new design as well. One reason why we chose the name system settings was to try to differentiate it from application settings. While that may be important for sending a clear signal to developers it may not be a useful distinction for users.
commit c21640fa6b78ff37f5da6f1e3c41b266f26dfada Author: Bastien Nocera <hadess@hadess.net> Date: Tue Nov 6 10:12:01 2012 +0100 shell: Rename to "Settings" "System" settings seem like the wrong thing to tweak to get to things like background, and a number of other preferences. Rename the desktop file and the window "Settings" https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=681543
See also https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687737 and https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=687738
Gosh.
Allan, could you elaborate on your "Gosh" comment? I wonder whether this change is necessary based on just the feedback of one tester. Were other subjects able to complete the action by going into System Settings? Why does this one tester's opinion carry more weight than those of other testers or users? Also, is there possibly another term that would fit within the overall shell terminology that could be less intimidating or worrisome for regular users but still convey that this area pertains to the Shell rather than an application? "System Preferences" comes to mind. It implies personal, system-related choices that you can make rather than a way to change some aspect of the system's technical infrastructure.
(In reply to comment #4) > Allan, could you elaborate on your "Gosh" comment? It was the decisive action. :) The change actually makes sense to me. > I wonder whether this change is necessary based on just the feedback of one > tester. Were other subjects able to complete the action by going into System > Settings? Why does this one tester's opinion carry more weight than those of > other testers or users? I wouldn't describe the results of user testing as "opinion". What Jon observed was a natural response to the UI. That response was also incisive. The "System" in "System Settings" doesn't fit for a few reasons. First, most of the settings don't actually relate to the system at all - they are personalisation settings (and these are the most important settings for the UX - they are the ones that people are likely to have more interest in and keep returning to). In cases where the user isn't the administrator, they might not feel that the system is their domain, and they might well feel that System Settings isn't for them - as Jon discovered. > Also, is there possibly another term that would fit within the overall shell > terminology that could be less intimidating or worrisome for regular users but > still convey that this area pertains to the Shell rather than an application? > "System Preferences" comes to mind. It implies personal, system-related choices > that you can make rather than a way to change some aspect of the system's > technical infrastructure. That's a good suggestion, but is there a problem with "Settings"? I would be surprised if users confused this with application settings (something we need to test for to be sure, admittedly).