RE: PROPOSAL: UISG Menu Line Standardization

["yiyus" <jg_yiyus jet es>]

>
>
>The UISG currently proposes that the FULLY LOADED Menu Line appears as:
>
>   Program | File | Edit | View | Options | Preferences | Help
>

What is the difference betwen Options and Preferences? I alredy know, you
have explained it a lot of times. But a new Gnome user will ask it. And lots
of aplications will have very few options and/or preferences, and all they
will be put in a dialog with a tree. I think they should be put in other
place. Perhaps a menu called options which looks at this:
_____________________________
 |Options|
=============================
 | Configure the program... |
 | Document settings...        |
 -------------------------------------

Though I wish somebody can make a better proposal than this, but I don't
like those two menus.
And I like more the idea of change the file menu name, but I haven't read
and study enough and I can only give my opinion as a normal user. So can
belive you if you say it is better consistency than logical sense (and file
isn't a crazy name for that menu).
Other possibility, put Options in the footprint and Doc settings in the File
menu.
I forgot: If we use a common options dialog with a tree, preferences (as you
call the unfrequently used options, no?) will be the last enter with
something as 'Others'.

> o Program, and Help are manditory items. (!)'marked.
>

I would like the program menu being the footprint icon and the help menu
bein the yellow ? icon. BTW: does anybody know is it always yellow?

> o File, Edit, and View are optional items. Some programs will
>   never need to load/save files, for example. Some programs
>   will never need to edit anything. Some programs will never need
>   to alter the user's view. (?)'marked.
>

Agree.

> o View, Options, and Preferences are contingent items, present
>   only when required by the app. They are not manditory.
>

The proble is that about all the applications have some options, though no
enough to have an own menu. I will try to think in a solution...

>   Agree or disagree?
>

We could say I agree, you know my opinions. I would tell some things about
what it is being said in this list.
1- Do we really need a war to decide how to call the Gnome levels? Please,
don't discuss so much about that things, I  don't see where is the proble
with that.
2- About menus in general: have a look at windows menus, if we care all the
things which have being told here, they are really bad. And people like
them! The world won't finish if we put a few-used option in the first menu
or if we don't follow ALL the books about UI design.
3- Stop discussing about who started to alter the list. We all are culpable,
since we all have discussed things which aren't important now. I agree with
Bowie that the RSG here is a problem (together, but not mixed, would be
better), but Dam was culpable because he went on with all that about the
File menu, and me because I put that mail starting the Tooltips war (such a
big mistake!) and everybody took part. That isn't important, the important
is the SG and it is what we must do. Bowie was doing it good, with very much
order, but he couldn't maintain it...

>
>
>+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>| Bowie J. Poag  bjp@primenet.com  http://www.nubox.dyn.ml.org |
>| Sand and grit in a concrete base.                            |
>+--------------------------------------------------------------+
>


- yiyus

PS: I have read that about make Preferences an Options submenu. I like this
idea. But I go on thinking we shold have Options in the footprint. This
opens a dialog with a tree wich has exactly the Options menu (with items and
submenus) for little applications. I could accept not have it too, but
IMHO... you know. And I wouldn't make edit obligatory, but don't worry, if
it makes sense, the developer will put it there, they have comon sense :-)