Re: control-center 2.13.90 released

[Elijah Newren <newren gmail com>]

On 1/30/06, Rodney Dawes <dobey novell com> wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 13:54 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > It's worth noting that the only applicable reason from that page for
> > not making it instant apply is that it took longer than a second.
> > It's worth noting that several have commented in
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=327335 saying that we should
> > look at making it faster, since it's close to a second (and for
> > several people is faster than a second) anyway.  For those of us for
> > whom it is faster than a second, this change is a HIG violation
> > AFAICT.
>
> No, read my mail to announce the changes to the appropriate lists. Both
> reasons are valid. All of the settings in the dialog get applied at the
> same time as well. So, the HIG still suggests it should be explicit
> apply, even if it is fast for you.

Could you explain the reasoning?  I've read your announcement (you're
referring to the one to gnome-doc-list and gnome-i18n list, right? 
I'm not aware of any other) and the HIG page and things don't seem to
jive:

>From your announcement:

'The changing of one's background takes 1.4 seconds on average, with
Nautilus managing the background, and all of the settings need to be
applied at the same time, which means that the dialog meets both
exceptions as stated in the "Instant apply windows" section.'

vs the HIG:

'Do not make the user press an OK or Apply button to make the changes
happen, unless either:
 *  the change will take more than about one second to apply, in which
case applying the change immediately could make the system feel slow
or unresponsive, or
 * the changes in the window have to be applied simultaneously to
prevent the system entering a potentially unstable state. For example,
the hostname and proxy fields in a network properties window.'


I can understand the timing one (though that just sounds like a bug
that needs to be fixed; it was fast before as Pat points out), but I
don't remotely see how the background preferences settings can be put
into an inconsistent/unstable state with instant apply.  I could just
be missing something obvious, though.