Re: Huge Batch Reply: Lars

[Lars Torben Wilson <torben coastnet com>]

"Dan \"Effugas\" Kaminsky" writes:
 > Because it makes logical sense.  The menuprint is owned by the *system*, not
 > by the application.  In Windows right now when a program crashes I need to
 > press control-alt-delete and try to find that program's entry, and kill
 > that.  It'd be much nicer to have a button that works when even the app
 > doesn't and be able to force quit.

So you keep saying. I just keep wondering what in the above paragraph
means that there should be an exit item in both menus. We seem to be
agreeing that it should be in the (system-owned, if you like)
Gnomeprint menu.

 > The file menu is one of those things that's just INCREDIBLY consistent, I'm
 > sure the Mac HCI guidelines REALLY lock down its contents.
 > (Note...Kaminsky's Second Law...)  That's just it...consistent interface,
 > time after time after time after time makes users SCREAM if something isn't
 > done right.

Look, I'm not now, nor have I ever, said that we should lose the File
menu. I just disagree that quitting has anything to do with files,
except that they are closed as a result.

 > When a non-geek like my GF(how'd that happen?) SPAZZES OUT OVER A GEEK
 > ISSUE, that means something.  It means that, unlike the rest of the

The only thing one data point ever means is that you need more data
points.:) 

 > Off the top of your head, right now, how do you print?  File::Print.  Off

Yes. Because I want to Print my File.

 > the top of your head, right now, how do you save?  File::Save.  Off the top

Yes. Because I want to Save my File.

 > of your head, how do you Exit?  File::Exit/Quit/Whatever, it's always on the

I want to Exit my App. So if app-wide stuff is under Gnomeprint, I look there.

 > bottom.  Off the top of your head, how do you change preferences?  Note the
 > "uhhh".  No standard.  Off the top of your head, how do you double space the

'scuse me. I didn't 'uhhh'. You did. Don't put words in my mouth, even
if they're not real words. :) Application-wide preferences go under an 
application-wide menu.

 > selected text?  No standard.

A formatting menu, perhaps? Just because you can *conceivably* put
everything under one menu doesn't mean that anyone will. Anything is
conceivable if you loosen your definitions far enough.

 > Most monitors out there are small, at low bit depth, with bad refresh.  Pop
 > a user in front of a nice, big, 24 bit 21" screen, and they'll love it.

WTF?:)

 > Most preference systems have no standard for where preferences should go.
 > Pop a user in front of an interface that ALWAYS gives them preferences in
 > the same, predictable places, and they'll love it.

Precisely.

 > There is no menuing order that you can pop a user in front of that doesn't
 > have file where the user isn't going to be annoyed right off the bat, since
 > most computer users START from Windows or Mac or have heard a little bit of
 > lingo.  The situation is compounded when random application specific entries
 > start *FLOODING* the one harbor of consistency they have.

What? Who said anything about adding stuff to the File menu (which I
presume you're talking about)?

 > One final note:  When you get down to it, IT REALLY DOESN'T MATTER WHY USERS
 > HATE IT.  It just matters that they do.  Nobody uses something they hate
   > unless they have to.  To me, that's a BIG hit on usability.

Great. If users consistently hate it, even after getting to understand 
and use it, that's useful data. So far we have a user who hates
the idea of it, but hasn't actually used it. Not yet useful.



Torben "IMHO, of course" Wilson :)