Re: RGSG

["Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

-----Original Message-----
From: Kai Wetzel <k.wetzel@welfen-netz.com>
To: gnome-gui-list@gnome.org <gnome-gui-list@gnome.org>
Date: Tuesday, August 04, 1998 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: RGSG


>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.


Sounds like I/O to me...

>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.


Do you have a problem with defaults going in here?

>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.


Not as clear as a plain old Help menu.  I like the idea of Help having a
"play tutorial" option...only available if the tutorial was available.

>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).


What do you suggest for standards?