Re: Contribution

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Fri, 1 Sep 2006, Owen Taylor wrote:

> Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2006 15:49:03 -0400
> From: Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>
> To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> Cc: Pat Suwalski <pat suwalski net>, desktop-devel-list gnome org
> Subject: Re: Contribution
>
> On Fri, 2006-09-01 at 00:47 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > On Thu, 31 Aug 2006, Pat Suwalski wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > On the project I work on, Celestia, my goal is to have a UI that is
> > > consistent with the Windows UI, so that it's literally a port. To that
> > > end, some things follow the HIG (I have dialog buttons at the bottom of
> > > the window as opposed to the side)
> >
> > Gtk add support for alternative button orders for just this kind of use
> > case.  It is at least possible to have it both ways if you want.
>
> Actually, that's not the point of alternate button order support; the
> point of the alternate button ordering setting in GTK+ is to be able
> to create a GTK+ application that runs in a Windows or KDE environment
> and has button ordering consistent with the platform, including for
> the standard dialogs where the buttons are created by GTK+, not by the
> application.

sorry I misread it at first thinking he wasn't following the standard
button order and was suggesting that he could follow the Gnome button
order if he wanted and then use the alternative button order for Windows.

After drafting the message I did notice that he was actually talking about
putting the buttons on the side rather than talking about button order.
I then went back and poorly (far too poorly I'm afraid) rephrased it to
encourage him to add alternative button order, and then to also state it
would be interesting if it there was an easy way to switch the button
layout to stick things on the side.

sorry for the communication failure, I fed the gremlins after midnight and
things didn't go so well.  (next time I'll wait until the morning and try
harder to be clear)

-- 
Alan