GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 76081
s/picture/image/
Last modified: 2005-08-15 01:39:56 UTC
I don't agree with Seth at all that we should use the word "picture" - "image" is NOT a computer term, it's a perfectly normal English word, used in many very usable and UI-expert-reviewed applications. According to both me and gnome-dictionary, "Picture" connotes a likeness of something, usually a photo or paint-on-canvas. If I have an abstract pattern like most of our wallpapers, those are not pictures, they are just images or designs. Moreover every other application on the planet on every platform pretty much says "image" not "picture" - the word picture here is just _weird_ and _surprising_ and generally makes me slow down and think "wtf?" So I think both the capplet UI and the schemas should be fixed to use "image" not "picture" Or if not "image", "wallpaper" would be OK. But "picture" is broken; most of the options we have available are _not_ pictures.
When referring to a photograph / other objects that get classified as pictures, we should try to use the word "Picture". Most people are familiar with the word "Image", yes, but its a level of geek-speak that people don't use in their daily lives. "Hang the image up there", "Take an image of me with me dog please", "I'm going to paint an image of a dog". I fail to think of a non-technical context where people really use the word image. In cases where "picture" doesn't apply, such as more abstract designs on a package, I think we're more likely to use specific words like "pattern" rather than "image". (now this is changing for some people, because, as you've pointed out, computers use image left and right, but I don't think this is true of any but the most geeky) *Except* in a professional/technical context (publishing, computers, papers about modern art) I think the word "image" goes largely unused. There are lots of words that people understand, but using them in the computer makes it seem stuffy and unnecessarily technical. Now for example, in GIMP, using image would be appropriate, because it is part of the jargon of the imaging (heh, heh) and publishing world. Furthermore I think the word "picture" can and is naturally used to refer to more abstract designs, and least in the context of "painting a picture". e.g. that phrase, to me, does not connote painting something "photo-like" and could just as well be a completely abstract set of colours and lines. That said, most of my background "images" are photographs, I don't know how this breaks down for other people though. So here is the tradeoff in my mind: "Image" is more accurate and will satisfy the pedants and technical elite who have come to prefer the term. Further, other programs such as GIMP use the word "Image". "Picture" is the word that is used *much* more commonly and naturally in RealHumanInteraction(TM) In Windows or MacOS I would have no problem choosing "Picture" and then pushing on Applications to change where appropriate. In GNOME, a significant percentage of our user population falls into the "pedants and technical elite" category. So while I wouldn't be strongly opposed to changing to "Image", I do not think it is as good a choice. I think its a mild example of foisting technically accurate but uncommon jargon on users.
>"Image" is more accurate and will satisfy the <b>pedants and technical >elite</b> who have come to prefer the term. Just a hint, Seth- calling the people you're arguing with names [because you do clearly associate 'elite' with elitist, otherwise you wouldn't use the word] doesn't really make your argument more persuasive. What do Windows and MacOS use in their background settings, anyway?
FWIW, pedants was intended as name-calling (and I don't consider anyone associated with this discussion to fall into that category, but I'm quite sure that a number of pedants will find Picture bothersome), technical elite is (and was) not to be name calling. We're all a member of this class. If I were designing the interface for myself alone I would probably use Image. Its a more precise term. Its just not a conversational word, and I think it makes the computer seem more cold than necessary.
Updating all cc bugs that have the GNOME2 keyword set to the GNOME2.0 milestone, to help jrb triage/prioritize cc bugs. Filter on 'luis doing GNOME2 work' to ignore this spam.
I agree with Havoc, "Image" is a lot better, because you don't always set pictures as background. A Cartoon is not a Picture, pictures is a subgroup of images, those that are "taken with a camera".
control-center needs a 2.2 milestone; anyone object if I add one?
Can I agree with seth here and add that macos9 background selector uses picture not image.
Pat/Eugene, what's the docs team's view on this one? I seem to remember we changed "pixmap" to "image" in a few places during the last ui-review, but I forget if we chose "image" rather than "picture" for any particular reason.
btw, I don't feel so strongly on this either way anymore, presumably because I've gotten used to it in the meantime.
I have reviewed the definitions of image and picture in the online AHD, and I see no reason not to use picture. Picture is a class of image: "A visual representation or image ... rendered on a flat surface." This definition fits with the use of the term in the UI. My initial feeling was that image was more accurate, but the AHD has spoken!
and with eugene's comments i'm going to wontfix this, but if anyone feels i'm overstepping my bounds i guess reopen. Eugene: Any chance picture can be added to the gnome dictionary of terms.
I will include the term picture next time I am updating the Recommended Terminology in the Style Guide.
I need to reopen this bug. A mail sent by Jeff Waugh to the usability list last week (http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2002-November/msg00071.html) started me thinking about this again. The mail proposed a number of menu items (Open As Image, and so on). I looked at the AHD definition of picture again, and it does say that a picture is an image that >>represents<< something, which suggests that a picture represents a real-world object, individual, or location. So a picture is a class of image that represents something in the real world. The examples in the definition in the AHD support this. Now that I look more closely at it, I think my first reading of the term picture (earlier in the bug) was rather blunt. Picture is the correct term to use if we are talking about representations of the real world. But in the Background preference tool, the images we use as the background can be either pictures or non-representational images (mine are about half pictures, half other images). If picture is a class of image, is it really worth our while making this distinction in the UI? If a user must choose a representational image/picture and not any other type of image, then picture is the correct term. But if it does not matter what type of image the user chooses, then I think that image is the best term to use, as it includes representational and non-representational images. Reopening ... Cc-ing John and Irene also ...
Anyone want to make a decision on this one for 2.4? If not, it'll be punted to 2.6 within a couple days.
Looking at the discussion, I'd say that the balance of the argument is in favor of "image". Unless anyone wants to put up a stout defence for "picture" I would recommend sticking with "image". Pat
Right now, it has both 'picture' and 'Image'. Unless someone speaks up I'm going to go to Image for 2.4.
Created attachment 22764 [details] [review] Proposed Picture->Image patch.
Go for it Jonathan! :) regs, Chris
I like image myself.
I like red cabbage.
(That was "please please please can we do something and close this bug", but I apologise for it's obscurity ;)
I like swords. A wallpaper is a class of image that represents what one would put on their desktop background. Should we close this as "fixed" then?
Yes, we should. Bugs must die.