<HTML>
<BODY>
Salvete!<br>
<br>
Sorry about the ccing and such, but I want to make sure the proper folks get this, so I just replied all to the last post.<br>
<br>
I've been thinking for a little while about the nature of the project. To a certain extent, we are all victims of the project's success, which I believe to be a happy problem. The _surface_ problem is that of translation or diction used. (Arguably there isn't even a standard within a given country thanks to trends - some folks prefer Patrons, some customers, some users, et cetera.) <br>
<br>
I think the deeper problem is that there is one out of the box programme. I truly believe that we're well past the point that that even comes close to working nicely anymore. Well do I also know how very much time dedicated developers like you all put into this, for free. In the end, I think it would save user time to either have a drop down install or different purpose based packages. For the States (I apologise here again, it's been about a decade since I lived in Ireland, and even that was short term, so I hesitate touching someone else's stuff.) I would propose a breakdown based on volume size and Library purpose. For instance small Public, large Academic, School, Consortial, et cetera. If the switches are already flipped for the most part, there will be a lot less hassle at the end of the day for a bunch of effort up front. I bet that a users' group would have good insights into how they would want their package to look by default. <br>
<br>
All the functionality would remain for each package of course, it would just be a nicer initial Out of the Box flavour for different Library types in different regions. Time could be managed that way, et cetera. (Or maybe not, since I'm not a technical person, but I remember installers for other stuff prompting for time zone and such...)<br>
<br>
Not in the face,<br>
Brooke<br>
<br>
</BODY></HTML>