renaming layers to groups... Re: [Bf-funboard] layers vs. groups

[Luke Wenke]

Firstly, here's the problems with the renaming...
In the select menu there is an item called "Grouped..." with the hotkey
shift-g. When you use it it says "Group selection". If those group words can
be replaced with something else, then the "group" word would be free to
replace "layers". That shift-g command could be called "select..." or
"select relatives", etc. The hotkey should be changed as well. (The hotkey
sometimes gets in the way when I'm trying to move something a small amount
[shift-g] anyway).
The other reason is of course that layers are referred to a lot in tutorials
and manuals...
But the "m" command could still be the same, and the layer (group) icons
would still work in the same way...

As far as the reason why goes, I think the name "layer" isn't an accurate
one. In every single program I know of that has layers, objects only exist
in one layer. But it is fairly logical that an object can be a member of
many groups.
In many places, Blender reinforces the idea that objects can only exist in
one layer... in the lamps buttons a button is called "Layer" and the tooltip
is "...in the same layer only". And the object menu has the item "Move to
layer..." The user has to shift-click to select more than one layer, but
they mightn't even try that since the term "layer" and Blender's text
implies that objects are only allowed to be in one layer.
If it was named "groups" (and "move to groups") it would be intuitive that
an object can be a member of many groups. Though renaming "move to groups"
to "group membership" would make it even clearer that objects can be members
of many groups...

I don't think suggestions to revise some of Blender's wording should
automatically be dismissed.
- Luke.

> This may sound rather blunt, but....Why?
> Don't make things overly complicated by renaming important parts in
> Blender.
>
> Roel