New Terminology: A Proposal

[Inarai]

Very interesting discussion... I have not voted yet, but will after thinking about this a bit... it is early in the morning and I'm not totally awake...

Primarily, my opinion is that straightening out some terminology, perhaps with an official glossary of common terms on the RainWiki, is an excellent idea. But on first look, I definitely do not agree with many of the more specific ideas posted. As mentioned by Alex, "Widget" has come to mean "thingagummy" and is somewhat overused. Sure, "skin" isn't a very accurate term, but it works... at the moment I have no better solution so that is as far as I'll go on that tangent.

One thing I won't flinch on is the difference between "config" and "theme," as JSM so wonderfully explained. Theme is very different from config, but currently some people use them interchangeably. This interchangeability ought to be corrected without having to eliminate one of the terms.

Further, I don't see the need for any rigid enforcement or rapid overhaul of Rainmeter's UI and Manual just to make old terms fit with some new ones. Rather, wouldn't it be better to clarify the definition and appropriate usage of the terms we already have? If so, only a few minor changes might be necessary...

[Apologies in advance for any gross grammatical errors above. I'm a little drowsy and I didn't proofread. ]

Well, "Widget" isn't part of the proposal forwarded. It's just a tangent suggestion Chewtoy made - and frankly, I'd agree with you on that one, and add that the term itself feels a little... immature. Makes things look like they lack polish, something that bad terms can do.

And I hate to be blunt about it, but the present terms? They're not very good. The term skin clat out does not mean what it's used for here. Certainly, there's always a little wiggle room on terminology, but it needs to be clear, and right now it isn't.

Believe it or not, we mostly came up with these based on what the words actually mean - which means that most new users would have a far, far, far easier time understanding it. Now, to be fair, Themes to Configs seems like change for the sake of change - it's pretty much a wash. Config can easily be depreciated, at least until someone(if this does happen, and it's been brought up) develops a configuration tool, in which case particular app setups could perhaps be saved as configurations. I could see some use to that. The current use of config, on the other hand, makes very little sense - they're actually something that needs the be configured! Suite, on the other hand, is a lot more apt.

[sgtevmckay]

Ok folks

Baring the small tragedy with AccuWeather, I have had a couple days of clear thinking regarding this issue.
(As my Grandfather would tell me: "One small tragedy at a time")
It may seem unfortunately, but a lot has gone into Rainmeter, especially of recent, that matches the "skin" labeling concept.
Because of the usage, and the fact that I really do not wish to demand more of Rainy and to add to the confusion of the Rainmeter community at large.
I, must, unfortunately vote no to this proposal in it's current form.

Now that being said: there is a lot of confusion, and I mean a lot.
Clarification must be had on what we do have, it's proper context usage, and placement throughout the Rainmeter structure.
Although I can not immediately find who suggested the Glossary, but this is an excellent direction.
Ultimately there should be a large Glossary for Rainmeter, as there are so many areas to Rainmeter.
Rainmeter hearkens back to the days where small programs did a lot, and for this I am grateful!

Knowing the internal structures and common uses, the Fact that Rainmeter is an advanced program will have to be covered from an instructional/educational stand point and addressed as folks look for Rainmeter Structure and Skin information in regards to builds and capability expansion.

We have a wiki page: Rainwiki
Let's utilize these pages to create a glossary of Rainmeter Terminology.
This will even help folks that are looking to build on Rainmeter to identify how and where things go, and the common terminology.
Also by doing this, this will show us where we are lacking in our naming convention, and this is where we have wiggle room to label things appropriately. Not all areas or processes of Rainmeter are labeled, so let's move forward with a glossary.

Now I will put my foot down here. Naming conventions such as widget, gadget, dohickey, Thinging, or thing-a-ma-jig will be summarily flamed/taunted and the suggesting individual will have ugly smileys forwarded to then for a year

Props to the individual that suggested it

[Alex2539]

Believe it or not, we mostly came up with these based on what the words actually mean - which means that most new users would have a far, far, far easier time understanding it.

Exactly. While I agree that there is some ambiguity to some of the terms, this is at least the right way to start, and continue going about the process.

Now that being said: there is a lot of confusion, and I mean a lot.
Clarification must be had on what we do have, it's proper context usage, and placement throughout the Rainmeter structure.
Although I can not immediately find who suggested the Glossary, but this is an excellent direction.
Ultimately there should be a large Glossary for Rainmeter, as there are so many areas to Rainmeter.
Rainmeter hearkens back to the days where small programs did a lot, and for this I am grateful!

I Agree entirely. Regardless on whether the specific terms proposed here are passed, I will consider it a success so long as it is recognized that something needs to be fixed. My favourite example is this: given the current terminology, ask yourself, "How do you open a skin?" Why, you go to the "Configs" menu, of course! And how is the "Configs" menu laid out? According to the directories in the "Skins" folder! It's no wonder there's some confusion.

We have a wiki page: Rainwiki
Let's utilize these pages to create a glossary of Rainmeter Terminology.
This will even help folks that are looking to build on Rainmeter to identify how and where things go, and the common terminology.
Also by doing this, this will show us where we are lacking in our naming convention, and this is where we have wiggle room to label things appropriately. Not all areas or processes of Rainmeter are labeled, so let's move forward with a glossary.

That would be ideal. Of course, there would have to be some settlement on what the new terms would be first. This thread is proof that no one person (or group of people, as the case may be) will ever come up with a perfect lexcion, but we should at least try to get close.

[sgtevmckay]

That would be ideal. Of course, there would have to be some settlement on what the new terms would be first. This thread is proof that no one person (or group of people, as the case may be) will ever come up with a perfect lexcion, but we should at least try to get close.

Well said friend
we should move in this direction, to identify what we have, and then to name what we need to.

[cwfrizzell]

I've used Rainmeter off and on for years and never really had a problem with terminology. For me, it's a pretty straightforward hierarchy that simply calls for, as others have mentioned, clarification in a glossary:

Measure: data acquisition container
Meter: data display method
Config: particular configuration made up of measures and meters
Skin: particular config design/style
Theme: group of like-skinned configs forming coherent package

As an aside, I've come to find in various different ventures understanding the lingo is half the battle. Knowing the terms up front goes a long way to making the most of Rainmeter. That's why it should be highlighted up front so prospective new users have a better understanding before digging in, rather than trying to drink from a fire hose staring at an ini file.

[Falconer]

Ah, the smell of democracy...

I voted no, but I don't have much of anything useful to add to everyone else's posts,
so I'll be quiet now.

[dragonmage]

The only change that I can see being justified is changing "Configs" in the context menu to "Skins"

I like the term Config myself, but can see where it may cause confusion, and since all are stored in the Skins folder anyways, I don't see a problem with changing the menu to say Skins instead of configs.

A group of related skins could be called a "suite" but that may create confusion since "suite" is generally used for groups of related skins for different apps. They could be called "config" or they could just be called by their name, ie. Enigma. I don't see that there is really a need for a designation for them as Rainmeter will simply see and display them as a Folder with Sub-Folders.

Themes are a completely separate issue, and do not necessarily have to be comprised of related skins. A theme could be made up of skins from multiple authors, that a user decided they liked together.

[iUnify]

I like the changes. I do, however, feel that the name "Skin" and "Theme" have a place. The reason for this is simple. They are descriptive in a very universal sense. People use skins on all sorts of other applications, it is used to change the outside appearance and everyone knows that already (great for newcomers).

A theme also makes sense (to me) as they refer to a set of skins. Even with Vista themes, they are essentially a set of skins as they change the look of multiple components in windows.

Maybe I feel this way because I learned this way. Maybe it's because I am new and I don't know enough yet.

I dunno, I was told when I first came around, there really was not any 'set' terminology for RM BUT essentially everyone explained to me Skins and Themes this way. It is something people will understand.

I think, to make a successful and approiate set of terminology is importent in the growth of RM but it is important to realize you don't have to change everything and not to overlook a good thing when it's already there.

There are parts of the new terms that I think should be changed and I think if those who really understand this application come together to discuss the best possible scenarios an d make a poll for the other users of RM to vote on, you will all find the choices that come out on top in the end to be best for the App and Community as a whole, both for the growth of this application to appeal to a broader people as well as veteran users and on a marketing level.

What do you guys think?

Edit: I did not read everyones responses... only the first post and first response. I will finish reading now- I hope that my post has not been irresponsibly added to the discussion as a whole.

-- -- -- --
Can an .INI not be a "config" while the completed product of all files in each folder be its own name (if seen fit) and than whence added to the screen and opened a "Skin".

Obviously you can also just forget the second part there "while the completed product of all files in each folder be its own name (if seen fit)" which I only added because I'm not sure if that was a route being considered/ argued or not.

The only change that I can see being justified is changing "Configs" in the context menu to "Skins"

I like the term Config myself, but can see where it may cause confusion, and since all are stored in the Skins folder anyways, I don't see a problem with changing the menu to say Skins instead of configs.

In my humble little opinion this makes sense. New users will definitely find it easier to navigate the RM context menu to "Skins" rather than configs... and in my previous scenario that would make sense to call them "Skins" because at that point in the process they would be skins, not "configs" as they are when you are configuring the settings of the soon-to-be skin from inside the .ini file? Make sense?

A group of related skins could be called a "suite" but that may create confusion since "suite" is generally used for groups of related skins for different apps. They could be called "config" or they could just be called by their name, ie. Enigma. I don't see that there is really a need for a designation for them as Rainmeter will simply see and display them as a Folder with Sub-Folders.

I first heard the term "Suite" in reference to RM when RedBlackProductions explained his release of a "Synergy Suite". To me, a RM Suite is a cohesive collection of Themes released as one complete product. Enigma would be a suite because there are more skins than fit on the screen and more than one way to set them up, no? I mean, (I think) Enigma is intended to be 'this one set of skins' boom. OR you could use 'these skins to set it up like this'. I know (in my example) Synergy would be a Suite because when it is released all in one RAR, one download, there will be one folder, containing a Theme (multiple skins that all fit together in a specific formation on your screen) and than a seporate folder containing another Theme (with multiple different skins all intended to fit together in a specific formation on your screen) and possibly a third or fourth.

Does that all make sense to anyone?

Themes are a completely separate issue, and do not necessarily have to be comprised of related skins. A theme could be made up of skins from multiple authors, that a user decided they liked together.

I completely agree with this. BUT, for the purpose of a release a Theme would be just that, a set of related Skins intended for each other and to be placed in specific order on the screen.

It is true that many people take skins from multiple releases, or Themes, and put them together in their own order on the screen, possibly editing some to fit their needs- and sometimes even release those altered and combined creations. In that case, the new set released by the new individual (with the permission of all authors) becomes it's own Theme.

So I guess what I am saying is it does not depend on the state the Skins are in to determine weather or not it is a Theme-- it depends on the Skins that are included together that determines the Theme (or the name of that specific Theme).

A group of Skins is always a Theme, just what Theme is determined by the particular Skins that are grouped together in that instance.

What do you think Dragonmage and everyone else, also??? I am eager to see if anyone agrees with my points or if they have helped or made sense in any way or not?