Re: RGSG

[Kai Wetzel <k wetzel welfen-netz com>]

sun wrote:
[...]
> "file" doesn't necessarily deal _only_ with inputs/outputs, either.
> document settings would fit under "file" but don't deal with input or
> output.

Well, it mainly deals with storing and retrieving
persistent data, as well as _preparing_ for storage,
like adding a wrapping, determining how things should
be stored, printed (this time), etc.

However, it's a good idea to seperate this as
_cleanly_ as possible from "settings" in respect
to document/file content.  The word setting has to be
used very careful here IMHO.
 
[...]
[Placing Help in Gnome menu]
> > Cool.  I like it the more I think about it.
> 
> i don't think we're going to get it past the rest of the group, though.
> yes, it makes logical sense, but it _is_ a good idea to present help to
> new users immediately, on-screen, without requiring any mouse clicks or
> keystrokes to be discovered.

Hmm, in a newly installed GNOME/GNOME app, the
"empty" status bar could read "need help ?  Select
help from the icon menu in the top-left corner."
or similarly.

[...]
> > You really want to mix the File menu and the Options menu.
> 
> depends. if options pertain to an entire file, then they belong in the
> file menu. if you're talking about options to be applied only to a
> selected portion of a document, then sure, "selection" or "options"
> would be a better place for them.

Hmm, options, if called this way, are most often referring
to a sub-part of application preferences which the user
would like quick access to.  I would suggest to avoid
"Options" completely but think of more clear terms.
A traditional "Options" menu would contain a few quick
items as well as one or a few preference settings
categories which would bring up the preferences dialog(s).

[...]

kai