Project

General

Profile

Feature #8948

Reconsider the terminology around "persistence"

Added by sajolida over 4 years ago. Updated 6 days ago.

Status:
Confirmed
Priority:
Normal
Assignee:
Category:
Persistence
Target version:
Start date:
02/24/2015
Due date:
% Done:

0%

Feature Branch:
Type of work:
End-user documentation
Blueprint:
Starter:
Affected tool:

Description

We inherited this terminology from the world of live distributions but during the discussions about the Tor Browser confinment and the Greeter revamp, several people raise issues about it.

It might be worth thinking about that and see if we can find something better (and otherwise be happy with it but for a good reason).

We should be really careful while doing that as it could impact many many place in our project (website, documentation, code, even infrastructure). So feasibility, cost effectivness and flexibility are important issues here as well.


Related issues

Related to Tails - Feature #8949: Rework /doc/encryption_and_privacy/your_data_wont_be_saved_unless_explicitly_asked Confirmed 02/24/2015
Related to Tails - Feature #9814: Clarify what Tails is and what makes it so awesome Confirmed 07/06/2014
Blocks Tails - Feature #16711: Core work 2019Q3 → 2019Q4: Technical writing Confirmed 01/08/2016

History

#1 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

  • Related to Feature #8949: Rework /doc/encryption_and_privacy/your_data_wont_be_saved_unless_explicitly_asked added

#2 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

Could you be more specific about the issues that people raised? I do like the name "persistence" and users are used to it, so without more precise comments, I don't see the point...

#3 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

To explain a bit more the issue. The word "persistence" does not define an object as such but the quality of an object. So unless we're confident enough in using such a neologism, we need to add some object to go along this quality. So far we've been using the object "volume" (quite a technical term without much meaning on its own). But then we realized that "persistent volume" was not conveying the idea of encryption which is another key idea (at least as much as being persistent in the case of Tails). So in some places I've used "encrypted persistence" (neologism) or "encrypted persistent volume".

I agree that users are getting used to that term. And that's the reason why we should be careful while changing those things. But this should not prevent us from finding better terms that might be easier to graps for newcomers or easier to manipulate for doc writers.

#4 Updated by sajolida over 4 years ago

In the thread https://mailman.boum.org/pipermail/tails-ux/2015-April/000374.html we are proposing "Persistent Encrypted Storage". The word "storage" is less jargonistic and has much more meaning that "volume". It conveys better the idea of a place to store your data.

Note that when using "storage" the work "persistent" becomes slightly redundant.

#5 Updated by BitingBird over 4 years ago

I like "Persistent Encrypted Storage" - well, maybe with less caps, Persistent encrypted storage. I like mentionning that it's encrypted, lots of users are unaware of that and ask (at least on irc).

#6 Updated by sajolida over 3 years ago

These days I'm thinking that going for the neologism "persistence" (without "volume" or "storage") should work and has the advantage of being shorter and it's also what use prefer using on development channels. Maybe we should ask opinion from natives about how this sounds.

#7 Updated by u about 2 years ago

That's also how it's called in Debian Live by the way. See https://debian-live.alioth.debian.org/live-manual/stable/manual/html/live-manual.en.html#556 for reference.

#8 Updated by u about 2 years ago

In the german translation we call it Beständiger (verschlüsselter) Speicherbereich, pretty much persistent encrypted storage.

#9 Updated by u over 1 year ago

  • QA Check set to Dev Needed

Next steps on this ticket: ask native speakers about the terminology as suggested by sajolida in https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/8948#note-6.

Other than that we seem to be fine with the term now and could close this ticket.

#10 Updated by u about 1 year ago

  • Assignee set to cbrownstein

Tentatively assigning this ticket to crbrownstein. See my previous comment and question.

#11 Updated by sajolida about 1 year ago

  • Assignee changed from cbrownstein to sajolida
  • QA Check deleted (Dev Needed)

I'll work on this with Simply Secure.

#12 Updated by sajolida 3 months ago

  • Related to Feature #9814: Clarify what Tails is and what makes it so awesome added

#13 Updated by sajolida 3 months ago

  • Target version set to Tails_3.16

From discussions with Simply Secure I'm tempted to stick with "Persistence", with a capital "P" to mark it as a special feature.

Users I've interviewed were fine with "persistence", or used their own version like "persistent memory".

I'll make a final call this summer while testing the content I'm writing for #9814 and I could update it in a bunch of places in time for Tails 4.0.

#14 Updated by sajolida 3 months ago

  • Blocks Feature #16711: Core work 2019Q3 → 2019Q4: Technical writing added

#15 Updated by sajolida 15 days ago

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.16 to Tails_3.17

#16 Updated by intrigeri 6 days ago

  • Target version changed from Tails_3.17 to Tails_4.0

Also available in: Atom PDF