Re: RGSG - File Menu

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: John R Sheets <dusk@smsi-roman.com>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Monday, August 03, 1998 11:48 AM
Subject: Re: RGSG - File Menu


>Dan Kaminsky wrote:
>>
>> So lesse, why does the user quit?
>>
>> 1)  Done dealing with these files, wants out
>> 2)  Sick of dealing with all these files, wants out
>> 3)  All these files are taking too much memory, user wants out
>
>Okay, so here's a fine point: You don't "quit" a file.  You
>"close" a file.  Conversely, you can "close" or "quit" an
>application.  The danger with associating the same term with
>conceptually different actions is increased user confusion &
>mis-clicks (which can become very frustrating when it leads to
>terminating the whole application).


I've never met a user who had trouble figuring out that exiting an
application is one way to close all files that the file has open.  They
usually do this if the app designer forget to have a Close All command.

>> >> Am I missing something here?
>> >
>> >You seem to be taking a very File-centric view of applications.  Take
>> >another look at just which applications really NEED files.
>>
>> All applications have states, and few applications literally couldn't
save
>> those states.
>
>Is this an argument for keeping the File menu?  Just because
>applications are always associated with files, doesn't mean the
>user wants to think about it like that.  The word "file" is a
>very computer-centric term (in this context).  It is very
>comfortable for experienced users, simply because that's how it
>has always (ahem) been used.


It's also very comfortable for new users, since EVERY application will have
the SAME, CONSISTENT menu.  How are we going to have a keyboard shortcut
work if we use different headings?  "Leftmost window get alt-F"?

>However.  For newer users who aren't familiar with the "file"
>concept, it is much more intuitive to think in terms of "Game",
>"Project", and "Document" (not necessarily as menu headings, but
>as components of their applications).  They will think of a
>"file" as something that belongs in a filing cabinet.  Not as a
>collection of intangible binary data stored on their hard drive.


New users see File.  "Ah, means this menu is a list of things to do to
files.  Oh lookie here, every single thing inside here does stuff with
files"  Oh, and users *DO* think of the file system like a filing
cabinet--that's the best way to describe it to them, as far as I can tell.

>So my question is: how is using "File" as the central concept of
>an application _more_ intuitive than the other concepts that have
>been discussed here recently?


1)  A consistent phrase in the left hand side increases retention and
usability.  (Phrase doesn't have to be File.)
2)  File is standard--this must be considered, Aquinas has a point here.
3)  "Program"--so am I saving a program?  I dont want to replace this
program, I want to save a file that this program has open..."Main" Water
main?  So all these other menus are irrelevant, they're the suburbs of the
menu bar?  Main encourages all high-use items to be placed inside, as
opposed to all filing commands.


>John
>
>
>--
>         To unsubscribe: mail gnome-gui-list-request@gnome.org with
>                       "unsubscribe" as the Subject.
>
>