707802 - Copy recommendations for Thunderbird's "Big Files" feature.

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Marketing :: Copy, task)

Description

[Blake Winton (:bwinton) (:☕️)]

Attachment: A design document for the feature.

Hi Matej,

Thunderbird is launching a new feature that will let people transfer large files through email without copying them to everyone's mail server, by sending them to a cloud-based file server, and attaching the link instead.  Sadly, the best text I could think of to describe the links was "ThunderLink!", which is pretty terrible.  Any suggestions you could give on better wording for the various pieces would be much appreciated!

(I'm hoping that the feature will land before the 20th, which means that we'll need the new text before, say, the 15th to give us time to review them.)

Thanks,
Blake.

Comment 1

[abourcier]

Hello,

LinkIt, share large email attachment by sending a secured link to it 
SpaceSaver, share large email attachments without invading mailboxes (it's focusing on saving only not the sharing)
Garage, park you large email attachments in a safe place and share them

My 2 cents here
AM

Comment 2

[Matej Novak [:matej]]

Will this feature also make sending large attachments faster? If so, I thought of LightningLink (share large email attachments in a flash) to play off thunder. I like Garage as well and I'll also keep thinking of more options.

Comment 3

[Blake Winton (:bwinton) (:☕️)]

Lightning is the calendar add-on, so I don't think we want to use that…

SparrowMail has a similar feature at https://sparrowmail.tenderapp.com/kb/starting-with-sparrow/dropbox-in-sparrow and http://sparrowmailapp.com/ and they call it "Share File Fast" or "Dropbox Attachment" or "Cloud Attachment"

Comment 4

[abourcier]

Hello

I don't think we can call it "Dropbox attachment" or "Cloud attachment" as this is too restrictive. 
AM

Comment 5

[abourcier]

Hello

Can we move forward on this? any additional suggestions or comments?
thanks
AM

Comment 6

[Jb Piacentino]

A few comments:
- we don't necessarily need to find a brand, but if we come up with a name, we may need to file it as a brand to avoid future misuse. Check with Chris' team.
- stay away from 'localizable' terms, like 'Large files': this will become problematic with locales

I like the idea around space saving and faster sending (up to twice as fast). It's also about sharing and less about attachment. So I'd propose:
  - fastLink, quickLink or ThunderLink. fileLink might alos work

  - quickShare
  - smartShare and possibly smartAttach
  - filePark, to stay on the idea of Garage, which I like but fear is not obvious until you read the rationale

Comment 7

[Blake Winton (:bwinton) (:☕️)]

Some suggestions from Matej:
AttachLess
HatchLinks (like "hatchlings")
FileNest
Nested Links
BoomLink
FeatherLink
FeatherFile
BigLink
FileLink
CloudLink
QuickLink
ShareLink

He also says "Maybe it's just because I'm getting used to it, but I think ThunderLink could work. It doesn't necessarily mean anything, but it's a natural fit with Thunderbird."

(Adding squib and mconley, cause they're the one's who'll put something in the patch…)

Comment 8

[Jim Porter (:squib)]

Put me down as someone who's not a fan of CamelCasing (not least because of flashbacks to Java). "Cloud Link" or "File Link" would probably be ok though, but I'd really prefer a fusion of the two: Cloud File.

"Cloud File" works for me since 1) "cloud" tells you where you're sending things to, and 2) "file" tells you what you're sending. I'd recommend not using "Link" in the name, since it gives me a sense of attaching a link to a website (sort of like "attach web page" currently in Thunderbird). When you start the attachment process, you don't have the link yet, so the thing you care about is really the file, not the link.

In general, I'd like something that sounds meaningful, since a descriptive name will minimize the amount of reading users have to do to figure out what this feature is.

Comment 9

[David :Bienvenu]

My experience has been that people have heard of "the cloud" but don't know what it is. I've had several friends not in the industry ask me what the heck the cloud is.

Comment 10

[abourcier]

I agree with you David. The "cloud" is at best a concept for most of users.

I kind of like:

- Sharelink as it pretty well describes the feature... the feature "shares" a link not a file with the receiver

Attachless is not bad either. It's less self explanatory, but it has a positive meaning.

As much as the Feather, Nest and other bird life related terms are nice, I'm not sure it's fully understandable to our users who are not English natives.

Comment 11

[Jim Porter (:squib)]

Well, most of the suggested names don't really mean anything on their own either. Granted, "cloud" is kind of a vague buzzword, but I think it's more self-explanatory than something like "BoomLink".

I'm not terribly picky about the name, so long as one of the words is "file", and at least one of the other words gives a sense of cloud/shared storage. "File" is the most important part to me, since it makes it obvious what you're going to attach. With that in mind, here are some of my suggestions:

Cloud file
External file
File link
Hosted file
Online file
Remote file
Share file
Shared file
Web file

Comment 12

[abourcier]

Hello

So, if I try to summarize "Cloud" is a no-go in the name (and I personally agree) and File is almost a requirement. 

As much as I like Share File, I'm afraid this is a company service (Citrix) and I would recommend moving away from a potential name battle.

What about FileLess? or the FilePark?

We need to move forward as the deadline is this Friday in theory.

Comment 13

[David :Bienvenu]

(In reply to abourcier from comment #12)
> Hello
> 
> So, if I try to summarize "Cloud" is a no-go in the name (and I personally
> agree) and File is almost a requirement. 

I would characterize it as "Cloud is not perfect" but I think it's a better than most of the other suggestions. It's not a no go, in other words. I personally think something like File Link is fairly understandable if not snazzy.
> 
> What about FileLess? or the FilePark?

Those don't work for me...

Comment 14

[abourcier]

Hello All,

It's time for decision... I think that FileLink could do the job.

AM

Comment 15

[Mike Conley (:mconley) (:⚙️)]

Unless anyone objects, I'm going to close this one as resolved.