![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
zaluzianskya) wrote in ![[site community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/comm_staff.png){kind=small}
dw_suggestions2010-05-10 05:38 pm
Display user's display name when hovering over userpic
Title:
Display user's display name when hovering over userpic
Area:
comments
Summary:
Currently, when you hover over the icon someone's used on a comment, the title text displays their screen name and icon keyword. Instead of the screen name, it should display their display name.
Description:
This behavior is a little confusing for people who are used to how it works on Livejournal and its clone sites; it's become commonplace to hover over a userpic to see what name someone has chosen to use. Here, though, it just displays their screen name, which is already available just a few pixels to the right of the picture.
There are many benefits to showing the display name in title text rather than the user name -- Depending on what's been set, it can help let you know what name someone prefers to go by, and it can help you use the appropriate gender pronoun for someone you're talking to, if their screen name is ambiguous. These benefits don't apply 100% of the time -- for example, my display name, ℵ0, is neither gender-specific nor the name I prefer to go by -- but I think they apply often enough that it's worth looking at. You can still see the display name by going to their profile, but it's an added, unnecessary step.
Another major use of the display name is that it's where roleplayers put their characters' names, so that you can see them at a glance, just by hovering over the icon. This is so prevalent among roleplayers that some games make it a rule to put your character's name in the name field, and some people on Livejournal actually complain loudly when they come across journals that haven't done so. In this case, you can -- again -- see the character name by going to the journal's profile, but it's still inconvenient to have to do that.
The fact that this behavior is so different from LJ and its clone sites suggests that there was some reason for this change, but I can't find any documentation anywhere explaining it, and I can't think of a single good thing that comes of it.
This suggestion:
Should be implemented as-is.
29 (42.0%)
Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
1 (1.4%)
Shouldn't be implemented.
21 (30.4%)
(I have no opinion)
16 (23.2%)
(Other: please comment)
2 (2.9%)
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
no subject
;)
no subject