Re: PROPOSAL: UISG Menu Line Standardization





> I understand and to some degree agree with you.  
> 
> But my question to you: 
> Can you explain to me the decision making process that you underwent to
> come to this decision?  That is, specifically, did you decide that
> application relevance means more than consistency?  If so, why and when?

Gladly. Thanks for asking.

Right now, its an arbitrary decision in the eyes of the UISG, as a
document. We wouldnt be breaking consistancy with anything, if we flipped
either way -- application relevance, versus visual consistancy. My
personal point of view is that we should stick with a good thing, but keep
in mind that there are exceptions.

Having "Edit" present on a menu bar of an application which lacks any
functionality for editing is visually and structurally inconsistant. Its
also misleading, and infers that the functionality is THERE, just
disabled. This is misleading and disappointing to the user, which is why
we should avoid having Edit as a menu, with its options ghosted.
 
> I'll issue a warning that I think you should be aware of: the moment you
> start letting coders decide which parts of the style guide are relevant to
> them and which are not, you're in for some surprises.

I come from a coding background as well. Trust me. :) The UISG will
clearly outline which provisions are manditory, and which are simply
suggestions.

Thanks for your questions,
Bowie




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