Re: what is the reason for not making epiphany the default browser?

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt myrealbox com>]

On 11 Jan, 2006, at 1:27 AM, Michael Ward wrote:
> Peter Harvey wrote:
> > What is wrong with the zoom widget?

A few hours ago, my mother opened a picture of some text in IrfanView 
(featureful-but-shambolic image processor for Windows), and couldn't 
read the text because the picture was at 38% zoom level. After a few 
seconds I asked what she was waiting for, and she said "it's only 38% 
loaded, I'm waiting for the rest ..."

> > I would think that new users would be more confused with buttons as 
> > there is no concept of "default" or "normal" zoom.
>
> Who wants to select "normal" zoom?  If a page's text is too small to
> read, I want to increase the font size; if a page's content doesn't 
> all fit, I might like to decrease the font size.  Is a reference point 
> very often necessary?

I use the "Normal" menu item only when designing Web pages, not when 
reading them. :-)

It amazes me that Internet Explorer for Windows switched from a pair of 
Smaller/Larger buttons in 4.0 to a Text Size menu in 5.0 and later, and 
that Firefox and Epiphany have never gotten around to including Smaller 
and Larger buttons. A click is easier than a drag.

> ...
> > I would also argue that Edit/Toolbars is perfectly clear.

Alas, it's not. The command for showing the toolbar *at all* is in the 
View menu, and to have such highly related commands in different menus 
doesn't make sense. Furthermore, the command for customizing the 
toolbar (where such a command exists) is in the "View" menu in every 
other browser I've used -- even those Mac OS Classic browsers that had 
"Preferences..." in their "Edit" menu.

> > It uses the same language as Edit/Preferences.

Neither of them have an ellipsis, when they should.

> > And the default toolbar setup in Epiphany is to have two toolbars.

It looks like it has one toolbar and one address bar.

> > I also think that View/PopupWindows works too. If I want to see 
> > Toolbars, the Statusbar, or PopupWindows I used the same checkbox 
> > scheme.
>
> Edit->Preferences is a silly place to put a menu in my opinion.

Yes, but there isn't any better place.

> Applications that do the menu bar well have a menu for every major
> object that can have actions applied to it (e.g. Program, File, Tabs,
> Tools, etc.).

That's pretty much the opposite of how the menu bar was originally 
intended -- it was supposed to be full of verbs such as File, Edit, 
View, and Format.

> I think they are actually best when thought of as glorified context 
> menus.  In this case, the preferences either fall under /Program 
> Name/->Preferences, Program->Preferences,

This is what Mac OS X does, but Gnome doesn't have an equivalent menu.

> or a top-level Preferences menu (or why not just "Settings"?).

Because most programs don't have enough settings that need changing 
frequently and/or quickly enough to deserve a menu item.

> ...
> Still, the GNOME human interface guidelines specify Edit->Preferences,
> so I can't fault Epiphany for this.  I just wonder if this aspect of 
> the HIG was devised by somebody more familiar with Netscape Navigator 
> 4 or some other application that didn't follow any standard closely.

Netscape 4 followed the Mac interface guidelines fairly well, but it 
had "Edit" > "Preferences..." on all platforms instead of just the Mac. 
(And Netscape's designers tried to impose even more Mac crack on the 
Windows version for Netscape 6, but were progressively worn down by 
screeching Mozilla users.)

--
Matthew Paul Thomas
http://mpt.net.nz/