GP parameter terminology: "Input" instead of "Target"

[Bud]

Regarding geoprocessing tools like Spatial Join:

I've never found the word "Target" in "Target Features" to be very intuitive. I imagine that's a bit of an old school term that means something to people who have been around for a while or people who studied computer science. But as an average person, if you asked me if target was the input, helper/join FC, or output, I might not have the right answer.

Would using the word "Input" be more intuitive? Or something else?

[Craig_Eissler_Iceman]

...I actually don't mind "Target" because that is fairly standard database terminology -- and it let's you know which Layer/Table is going to be the master -- the one that can stay "in tact" if you so choose.

The problem with the term "Input", for me, is that there are "two" Inputs for a Join.

Where things get really confusing is when we use the word, "to" with respect to cardinality-- like One-to-One, One-to-Many, etc. ...Because if you say you're joining TO the Target (which "feels" correct); that would actually be opposite of how the cardinality terms are read.

...So, sometimes I intentionally use the term, WITH", instead of "TO" so as not to be confusing, if possible ...because it is confusing!