Re: Appearance properties
- From: Xavier Claessens <xclaesse gmail com>
- To: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
- Cc: desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Appearance properties
- Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:39:08 +0100
Le mardi 10 novembre 2009 à 14:23 +0000, Bastien Nocera a écrit :
> On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 09:04 -0500, Pierre-Luc Beaudoin wrote:
> > On Tue, 2009-11-10 at 10:55 +0100, Ruben Vermeersch wrote:
> > > While I generally trust designers in their judgement and I agree that
> > > there was an icon overload, I now often feel a lack of icons. My menu
> > > usage has slowed down because I now have to read everything instead of
> > > being able to rely on icons.
> > A good example of slowed down usage is Inkscape. Open the Path menu and
> > you have to read most of them to actually find "Division" where it used
> > to be a quickly identifiable by its icon (not to mention that the
> > difference between Division and Exclusion was better served by an icon).
> That's a bug in inkscape. If it _requires_ the icons to be useful or
> usable, then it should force the icons to be visible in those menu
> It would have broken the same way before if a user disabled icons in the
> menus themselves through the GConf key.
> > > Having a ton of icons is certainly not good, but is there anything
> > > that shows that having none at all is better?
> > That's my 2 cents as a user: unless studies have generally identified a
> > speed up in menu usage, I would think it was a move the opposite.
> There's a bugzilla with plenty of reasons behind this change. You're
> more than welcome trying to second guess our esteemed community
> usability people.
> I think most of the anger in this thread stems from the fact that "it's
> changed". Well, progress comes through changes, and nothing was ever
> achieved with status quo.
> Maybe we'll change our minds later, but without compelling arguments,
> it's hard to make a case for reverting this change now.
Actually I don't want to complain here because it changed. I'm against
but I can accept...
What I find totally insane is to not leave the UI to change that. New
settings is clearly not accepted by a large (majority?) part of users.
Except ~5 devs, I see nobody happy with it. So the minimum required is a
UI to tweak that... in *official* distribution, not some package totally
unmaintained and unknown that nobody will ever install.
] [Thread Prev