Re: "Desktop preferences" as a top-level item

[Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>]

On Thu, 2002-08-29 at 17:56, Seth Nickell wrote:

> "Desktop Preferences" is too long to be a toplevel item, we could put it
> in as "Preferences". 

Better, just "Desktop".  "Preferences" is probably redundant in this
context.

-Bill

> I don't have a major objection to this, and agree
> that its conceptually cleaner than having Preferences under
> "Applications". Nils and I originally had something like this but shied
> away for various reasons (mostly that we felt it was promoting
> preferences to greater prominence than was useful). In retrospect I
> think its better to put it in a top level.
> 
> > But I don't see any reason why 'Desktop->Appearance->Fonts' is unclear
> > or hard-to-find.  If you are worried about losing the menu item named
> > 'Fonts' (by making it a notebook tab in a more general appearance
> > capplet), then I don't see a problem with having two paths to the same
> > capplet.
> 
> 1) I don't think its too bad to have these preference pages be tabs in a
> single window, but....
> 
> 2) Its important that they each have their own menu entries (and
> nautilus entry, of course) and that there not be a launchable entry for
> the global area "appearance".
> 
> That said, since there's not a launcher for "appearance", I think its
> pretty useless to have these all be pages in the same window, and I'd
> rather spare the complexity of putting tabbed-items as menu entries.
> 
> WRT an "Appearance" category... I think these preference items will be
> some of the most commonly accessed. They are certainely some of the
> simplest and easiest to understand. I would be much happier, e.g.,
> trying to move other items into sub-categories and leaving only
> appearance related items in the top-level category. 
> 
> Also appearance is somewhat ambiguous. Should "Menus and Toolbars" be in
> there? That's certainely *related* to appearance? heh, There used to be
> lots more examples of ambiguous items, but we cleaned lots of crack out
> of the CC :-)
> 
> -Seth
> 
>