I read through the closed duplicate task, but I want to establish what is still to be done here. Is this determining new naming convention for the profile types (high detail, standard, etc) or is this about the filament category naming? I need a little more clarification on this - currently this ticket if pretty vague.
@adam I have left this one fairly low priority, and may be able to be closed if there is no urgency from marketing.
ATM we have the "experimental" profiles isolated, and do not appear under "all" when selected. This is to help signify that these have not been tested and verified by us, and may/may not work (vendor submissions.) Once we have a chance to verify the material, we move it out of experimental and into its appropriate categories.
The question is, do we want to re-organize how we label our materials and how they show up in Cura LE
@adam Your call on this one. I think the current naming convention isn't perfectly aligned with professional users (categorizing by Material Type seems like a better fit). But, since we also serve education and consumers, the current naming convention (by Ease of Use) might be serving "lowest common denominator" in terms of material science sophistication.