On Tuesday 19 December 2006 15:08, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:

> names need to be pretty obvious for users, with 
> large brands being an exception.

Agreed....  but: "large brands" are not large from the first day they
use their brand name. They grow large over time (or not).

Excel, Powerpoint, Outlook, Firefox, Mozilla, Acrobat, Skype, Google,
QuickTime, iPod, QuarkExpress...  I think we can agree that all these 
are somewhat "large" brand names (some nearly as old as personal com-
puting for the masses, some rather recent);  however, neither of them 
is suggestive of the purpose the software is made for.

Photoshop, CorelDraw, WinWord, Exchange, Netscape Navigator, Internet 
Explorer, iTunes, Illustrator, PageMaker,... these do somehow suggest
what the software is for.

It is just not a clear-cut thing which amount of "obviousness" brands 
need to have for users from their outset, and you cannot foretell the 
success of a branding effort in advance. Of course, if the product is 
uncool + sux, its chances for becoming a household word are miniscule.

Which leaves us not much choice for "rules" or "policies" (other than
this: developers themselves decide after hearing some comments, pro +
con, about their initial naming or alternative proposals).

P.S.:I think the naming decisions for KDE4 with Solid, Phonon, Plasma
     and Decibel will tend to turn out very nicely, and they have all
     chances to succeed in gaining a good branding recognition.