Found this one...

[Kai Wetzel <k wetzel welfen-netz com>]

Hi Tom,
I flagged you mail for quick response, but it seems
it was forgotten, here is my reply, anyway...

Tom Vogt wrote:
[...]
> > My suggestion for the outline, but you'd want to concatenate I guess:
> 
> I've saved this and will comment on it in detail later.

:-D

> some comments:
> 
> > After that, you could mention why you value cooperation between
> > "Linux" desktop project (such as GNOME, KDE, as well as
> > some minor projects) so low.
> do I? do we? I don't think so. maybe we should elaborate on that topic if
> this is the impression that's given.

Well, the discussion about moving the Quit/Exit
command out of the "File" menu is an example.  People
seem to have the impression of "a GNOME desktop" while
there is a good chance people will use GNOME, KDE,
LIP, fOX, etc. applications in parallel.

I agree that it's very important not to stick
to bad things just to "be compatible" or something.

But IIRC the question whether moving "Quit"
was a good idea _if_ this meant having a pretty
inconsistent desktop didn't appear.

In general, I think the GNOME GUI list is about
"debate" not finding common ground.
(In German: "Debatte" vs. "Diskussion" vs. "Erörterung")

E.g. I see very good points in moving out the
Quit entry - however, I don't think it's a good idea
to list as many props/cons as possible before decinding.

On the GNOME list, very few people argue in an open
way, most contributes are either for a against, I don't
think this is optimal.

> > Well, I strongly appose the notation of compliancy
> > levels, in fact, oppose any notation of "compliance"
> > in this regard.
> usage of compliance levels seemed to be generally agreed on, that's why I
> put it into there.

Well, I don't question you putting them in there,
I question the agreement.  And I only _question_ it,
because nobody seems to take that position.

If I took a more balanced pov myself, people
would come and say "hey, you even admit you're
opinion has good arguments against, so what do
you want ?"

In the case of compliency levels, it has never
been put down what's good and what's bad about using
this mechanism, IIRC.

Especially with political opinions as expressed by
Bowie et. al. it's pretty hard to argue against
compliency levels without going to discuss the
fundamentals of our political pov which I wouldn't
expect to be very fruitful in such a forum,
unfortunately, so I didn't even start this debate =O)

I just said, "wait a minute" are you sure you know what
this stuff implies ?...
Most GUI guidelines written by the Free Software
projects are full of stuff like "must", "should",
"if possible", "unless absolutely necessary",
etc., while actually providing little explenation
on the "why" behind (just my impression so far)

It has been said this changed with Federico's
new approach, however...

Take the "modality" stuff.  It's taken for granted
by many people.  Yet IMHO the question should be
"what's modality ?"  "what trade-offs ?", etc.
And most importantly, "what can we learn from it ?",
"examples ?", ...

> > Anyway, I'd suggest to re-consider the whole
> > file-menu-sucks debate.  There are some argumnents which
> > can IMHO show that the File menu isn't as bad as
> > it's opponents have been trying to show, and most
> > of all, we don't have a very good alternative, either (IMHO)
> we don't hate the "File" argument. we just want to move one or two things
> that simply don't belong there somewhere else. :)
> "File" will stay - for all that open, close, save, print, etc stuff.

I realize this.  The question is whether putting
the Quit command in there is _so_ horrible to take
the consequences into account.
(And, first: "What _are_ the consequences, anyway ?")

Don't get me wrong - I do like a lot about the
GNOME menu, and I think the NeXT interface is very
good in this case, but I'm very critical of the
way some people are bashing the Quit-in-File
idea and the inventors with it ;O)

IMHO it's a good idea to look at the reasons which
may have lead to decisions and _then_ reconsider:
- Is the older decision based on flawed resoning ?
- Is the older decision based on a different setting ?
  (What was the setting ?  What is the setting now ?)
- Is the older decision based on other priorities ?
  (Again: what are _my_ priorities, anyway ?)
...

[...]
> > > C3 -  If it seems appropriate to the specific application, the
> > > use of floatable menubars is encouraged.
> >
> > What's the value ?
> 
> you can pin them where you like and it doesn't hurt if you don't want that.

I guess I just donn't understand this "feature" :O)

> > > 3.2  DIALOGS
> > > ------------
> > > C1 - All dialogs should have at least one button that is labeled
> > > "Close", "Cancel", "OK", or "Apply."
> >
> > Hmm, you don't like a messge box which just reads
> > "Dismiss" or "Continue" ?  Should be given another thouigh,
> > also add reasoning when done.
> 
> gotta reduce the amount of choices here :)

Sure, the question is what to use when.  E.g.
not using "Ok" if there is only one point may have
advantages, etc.  Also it has to be asked in what
context the words are used most wisely.
E.g. should "Ok" ever indicate harmful affirmative
actions ?  Should "Ok" be replaced by concrete verbs always ?
In particular cases ?  If yes, what cases ?
...

I have the impression that you're either flamed
or ignored on the GNOME GUI list in most cases, rarely
responses like "Hmm, interesting points, how about this ...."

> > > ( for example, an "OK" and a "Cancel"),
> > > the affirmative button should always fall to the left of the
> > > negative.
> >
> > Sad, but you seem to like this crap :(
> 
> didn't think much about it, to be honest. ripped from sg.html v1. :)

I have the impression that this is another case where
people read the criticism from about face (?) or
the interface hall of shame with too little distance,
but that may be because I'm of different opinion ;°)

> > I'd strongly

( "strongly" because I have the impression that in this
forum it's essential to raise voice to be heard which
is either a false impression or a point in favor of
my comment above ;°|

> > suggest to put the confirmative action in the
> > bottom right corner for Latin-script languages:
> 
> any other votes on this?

(I'm not watching closely anymore; and I didn't bother
to point my cvs to the GNOME server, yet, it seems the
masters beleive http is no good for this kind of thing, <sigh>)

Best regards,
kai