Re: [Epiphany] Re: Tabs options

[Mike <mike redtux demon co uk>]

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 18:08, Alan Horkan wrote:
> On 31 Aug 2003, Mike wrote:
> 
> > > > My main gripe here, is that I cant see any overriding rational for the
> > > > HIG to dictate the use of SDI, where it is  less usable than MDI/tabbed.
> 
> SDI is simpler and less complex for ordinary users.
> MDI tabbed intefaces are more efficient for users that like to have many
> windows open all at once.
> 

this group is not nessarily different to ordinary users, in fact most
ordinary users DO have a lot of windows open at once.

> The HIG is all about sensible defaults and the best possible anwser for
> the most possible people.
> 

I agree with this, the question what are the sensible defaults

> The Gnome HIG is about providing a coherent and integrated desktop,
> it is not about designing the best possible applictions for the specific
> task in total isolation.
> 

agreed

> I'm sure Vi and Emacs are fabulously poweful applications much loved by
> their users but they just dont do it for me as they require learning and
> time investement I am unwilling to make.  I much prefer that my
> applications try and keep things simple and follow along the lines of the
> defacto Desktop standards.
> 
> An application or tool that does one thing really well is great if you are
> going to be using it a lot, but if you are only using an application
> infrequently (possibly so rarely that you virtually need to relearn it
> every time you use it) then simplicity, ease of use, and quick
> learnability are essential.
> 
> > > list, and in my opinion, the constant flood of messages to threads, such
> > > as this, on the topic, are getting a little bit annoying.
> 
> which is why I hope this will be my last posting on this thread.
> 
> > This was really what I was getting at. Removing a very useful function
> > (tabs) because the HIG says that MDI should not be used when, especially
> > with the default WM, there is not a sensible alternative, is not the way
> > to go.
> 
> I tend not to take the Human Inteface Guidelines too literally.  They are
> after all generalised guidelines, not rock solid rules, there is plenty of
> room for flexibility.  The best rules can always be made to bend :)
> 
> I am inclined to believe that Tabbed intefaces are not a good default but
> that having them available is reasonable.
> 

I posted a fairly long email on this to usability, basically asking for
a discussion on this issue.

The gist being that for different types of applications, what is the
sensible default should differ.
 
> The way both Epiphany and Mozilla work you dont see the tabs by default
> and you can treat it just as a simple Single Document Inteface if you
> chose to do so.
> I prefer to use an application as SDI by default but the option of Tabs is
> certainly useful.  I hope that I can leave it at that.
> 
> Sincerely
> 

We can certainly agree to differ on that anyway.

I have now taken this to usability

As an aside, I think the reason why stuff like this discussed quite
often is that epiphany, and formerly galeon, are apps people use all the
time so issues come to light more.

> 
> Alan Horkan
> http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Epiphany mailing list
> Epiphany@mozdev.org
> http://mozdev.org/mailman/listinfo/epiphany