That's fine DDK, but D.L. wants that front/back relationship changed (reversed). The conundrum here is how, in the process of attempting to do such, would you avoid the logical conflict and the attendant consequences of having two sets of the same terms with opposite meanings at large. Who would be helped by doing this?
I would agree that new labels should not be transpositions of old labels. I can also see dl's point, if only one side is to be shown, why not let it be the side which is more interesting. The question, then, is how can the majority of authors be encouraged to show the back of the bowline?
I think that the label "Detailed" does provide some encouragement. Many authors, however, are presenting to a general audience and will present that view which is more useful for the identifying and tying of the bowline - at the moment, likely the "Regular" view. That is, most authors are likely to stick with the status quo.
The labels "Overhand" and "Underhand" are more balanced and would have been more suitable from the beginning. In addition, they do not reinforce the current status quo. Those looking for a compelling rapid reversal of which view is shown, however, will not be satisfied with these labels. I tend to think that the reuse of terminology associated with two distinct knots for the labeling of two views of a singular knot is a little confusing, but, I don't have a significant issue with it.
How about "Novice/Tier" view vs. "Expert/User" view? Granted, that probably reinforces the status quo. Here we go, "Old" view vs. "New" view!
DDK