Re: Huge Batch Reply: Tom



Dan Effugas Kaminsky <effugas@best.com> wrote:
> >text readout? hm, wonder what that will do to my .eps screenshots...
> Isn’t text separated from graphics in a postscript file?
I'd be very surprised.


> >no, it wouldn't - because of the very sentence we are talking about.
> because
> >we allow exceptions and because I DO believe that there is NO way to write
> >up C1 and C2 compliance levels in a way that allows exotics like kpt to be
> >compliant without allowing nearly everything. that's WHY we allow
> >exceptions.
> There still have to be things—GC0 things, if you will—we don’t give on.
> Entries such as “An application that has been exited by the user must
> actually kill itself within a reasonable amount of time; it may not remain
> an invisible process for any reason, including to cause reopens of the
> application to appear faster.”

this sounds very reasonable, BUT - a) there is no G0 level and b) no matter
what you come up with, someone WILL find an exception. bet on it.


> >> >aside from that, NOBODY in the whole discussion asked for the removal of
> >> the
> >> >file menu.
> Renaming the file menu is removing the file menu.
eh? last time I checked, mv wasn't a symlink to rm.


> >> 1) IBM research--they'll open File up first.
> >a) they're used to it
> >b) it's the left most thing. ibm research - the leftmost thing will be used
> >most often, no matter what the <beep> it's called.
> 
> I could see “About” being available before “Open”.  I could see
>  “Preferences” being available before “Save”.  But “Create Screenplay”(very
> appropriate for gnomeprint but not for a spelled out menu) before “New File”
> ?!?  uh?

that's why I and others are telling that the screenplay stuff doesn't belong
into the Program menu.


> Wonder if users will treat the gnomeprint as the leftmost icon menu and file
> as the leftmost text menu.

do a mockup and tests.



> >> 3) What happens in a file? Input/Output.
> >try telling THAT to the secretary.
> Get stuff in or shove stuff out.  Not too hard.
I said "try", and you answer by GUESSING.

please DO try. you'll be surprised by the amount of not-understanding.
("eh? out of what? in? egypt?")


> >but IT IS STILL THERE. it can be reconfigured. it will be there no matter
> >WHICH file you open.
> 
> Toolbar is useless without a file.  It’s a file modifier.  Not too
> illogical.

I give up.

let's put the whole damn app into the file menu, because in the end all of
it is there to manipulate some files.



> Uhm it’s kinda worked like this since the first Mac, maybe even the Xerox
> PARCs.  There isn’t a UI that doesn’t use File:Quit or File:Exit.

then we'll be the first.

I have believed in doing what I thought was right for all my life. true,
sometimes I payed dearly for that attitude, but mostly it was well worth it
when I later found out that everyone screwed up except me and the two others
who did it their way.


> >("Document"->Close - does it need to be spelled out?) or spell it out
> >("File"->Close Spreadsheet), it does not matter to the point I was making.
> >would be cool if you'd answer that point.
> 
> Point answered:  If Close is spelled out(close document, close active,
> etc.), File:Close and File:Exit don’t contradict.

eh? File->Close document ? weird construction.



> Exit belongs there, definitely.
> 
> What else?  You act like there’s this wealth of items, yet you only have a
> SINGLE ITEM that obviously belongs there.  You’re gonna make the first
> opened text menu one with a SINGLE OBVIOUS ENTRY?

About belongs there, too (there's some discussion about About containing
helpful items and such, but if you for just one second join me and 90% of
users out there and take the dumb approach, then it's ABOUT PROGRAM.

preferences belongs there - see the other mail.


> I have no problem with an ICON menu that does that—Icons leave the File menu
> as the leftmost text menu.  In fact, I PREFER THIS SOLUTION.

it seems the majority does. as long as it works out with users, that's ok
with me.



> >it does not kill file, correct. at this moment it is leftmost of file, but
> >there might be a reason to move it somewhere else. this is NOT decided
> upon,
> >it has been mentioned only ONCE (so you CAN read carefully if you want!).
> 
> Gee, if it’s not decided on, you don’t have that consensus you keep talking
> about.  (Remember, you’re talking to a MAJOR stickler for details.)  The
> location of Program is kinda critical, ya know.

you know, it has been mentioned ONCE that the leftmost location might not be
perfect. other than that, everyone kinda agrees. so I guess that one
mentioning is mood. especially because mockup tests have shown that it's
terrible anywhere else. in addition, using an icon solves the problem.


> YOUR turn to respond to the point I made.  As I show above, you can’t
> win...if it ain’t on the left side, or if it is on the left side, it loses
> both ways.

I can't see any logic in your argument.


> >> 3) The research. Ask some users what they do if there's no Quit. They
> >> control-alt-delete. On a Linux box, that's instant shutdown right now.
> >> (That needs to change.)
> >total bullshit. sorry, but this is so stupid, it hurts.
> >
> >T H E R E I S A Q U I T
> >
> >simple as that. question answered.
> 
> There’s a quit in the wrong place.

so first you run around screaming bloody murder and then it's just that
someone cut his finger?

you're really turning around the argument in whatever way suits you. I'm not
even sure you notice, but I have had a couple of courses on rhetorics.

how about we do it this way in the future: you state EXACTLY what's your
point and then we'll go and discuss ONLY that point until it's resolved?


> actually the correct thing to do.  Should Program have an exit entry.  The
> only one?  What’s GENUINELY WRONG with having it in File?
you don't exit a file. simple as that.

> Can we standardize between Exit and Quit?
we already have. "Exit" has been the standard ever since the official gnome
style guide version 1.


> >talking about proposals: how about to hear an actual proposal from you?
> just
> >to compare things...
> 
> Working on a full fledged defense of file, as well as a number of other
> suckers.

by the time you're finished, the file menu will be as dead as cesar. :)


> I look for logic.  Period.
isbn 0-87773-446-1


> >we are getting rid of a file-centric view. we are NOT getting rid of the
> >"File" menu. we will, however, rename it to something more appropriate.
> 
> Renaming is killing it.  If I don’t see a file menu, there’s no file menu.
> It was removed.  Period.

so you DID symlink mv to rm on your system? tell me how it feels. :)


> >exactly that's the key. the user DEFINES the default. look into the
> >archives. keywords: "panel" and "lsm"
> 
> User ain’t gonna do any work.  Users don’t even click on a category when
> installing stuff in Windows.  They just don’t.  Even I just don’t.  Period.

you're guessing again. I don't want to argue guesses.


> I think the fifth level should be pulled out into some kind of experimental
> category, because level 5 compliant implies level 1, 2, 3, and 4 compliant.
> 
> Any argument against?

yes. there is no logical reason to have 5 include everything else.
especially not 4.


> >> The GIMP). Of course, you'll still have to come up with a decent
> >> default layout because it takes time to reconfigure everything. Why not
> >> implement something like this?
> >
> >my #1 reason why not is that it won't get used. EVER. not by our target
> >audience, the simple user.
> 
> Uh no, we’re not making a dumb interface, that’s KDE ;-)  And sysadmins LOVE
> power...might assist with getting us high Orange Book certification.

agreed. config power to  the admins.


> >I'd say KISS - first letter, bingo.
> 
> Alt-O?

for what?


> >hm. maybe the name of the menu shouldn't change per app, but per user
> >context?
> 
> ‘cept menu contents won’t change with context...a document menu with “font”
> and “paragraph”(two things that relate to documents but have NOTHING to do
> with I/O) will become a file menu with “font” and “paragraph”.

not app or document context - user context. every user can have his own name
and every theme could. that way you could have a "star trek" theme where the
menu names fit in. or a fantasy theme where "file" would really look weird.


-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly.
		-- Henry Spencer



[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]