Re: Style Guide suggestion

Gleef wrote:

> Yes, having it be a verb would be a Good Thing (TM), particularly for new
> users.  I am strongly against combining application options and document
> settings under one menu item, however.  This means we would need two
> verbs, sufficently different to be easy to learn.

also a good idea, but might it be time to consider allowing two words in
order to differentiate between document and application preferences,
rather than settling for a (possibly more confusing) term that hasn't
been used yet? for instance, if we follow the earlier suggestion of
having an application menu ("main" or whatever) and the next one
("file," "document," "game," etc), we could simplify the configure

|   incredibly verbose gnome application menu   |  document  |  edit  |
etc... |
|   configure application                       |  configure |  cut   |
etc... |
|   ...                                         |  ...       |  ...   |
...    |

of course, the confusion between "configure application" and "configure"
would have to be overcome, and maybe "configure document" would be the
way to do that, rather than resort to using vaguer verbs, in spite of
the wordiness. any thoughts on this?

> So, I would say that my modified stance would be to:
>    1) Replace all references to a "File" menu in the style guide with a
>       "Main" menu.
>    2) Delete the sentence which says: 'In the event that "File" ["Main"]
>       is not appropriate, another label may be used in its place.'
>    3) If the application has a menubar and a dialog box to
>       modify the settings of the application, the menu item should be
>       "Main | Setup...".  If it doesn't have a menubar, whatever accesses
>       the dialog should be labelled "Setup".
>    4) If the application has a menubar and a dialog box to modify the
>       configuration of the currently active document, the menu item should
>       be "Main | Configure...".  If it doesn't have a menubar,
>       whatever accesses the dialog should be labelled "Configure".

and might i add:

	5) if the application has a right-clickable root menu (and i still
think all of them should, at least as an option), the choices in the
"main" menu should be added as root-level commands after the other
menus, in the style of electriceyes.

other issues: i've seen enough agreement with the "main" menu idea on
this list to warrant a discussion about what this menu should be called.
i saw a passing suggestion about using a global icon here; having used
macs and amigas and ataris since the advent of the motorola 68000 i'm
all for this idea. :) i hereby cast my vote for a gnome footprint icon.
other ideas?

also, is "gnome" pronounced with a hard g or silent g? i talk about it
often enough to my friends that are disgusted with hardware problems
with their shiny new windows 98, two of which have installed linux
already, and since evangelizing the platform seems to be my strong suit
(i can't code, but i'm working on this problem) i guess somebody should
clue me in already. :) hmm, that was a bit off topic... sorry...

> That's already in the style guide:
>    'Menu items that open dialogs or require additional user information
>     should indicate it with a "..." after the label. For example, the
>     "About" menu entry in the "Help" menu should actually look like
>     "About...".  '

my foot's in my mouth then. :) okay, so it's been a while since i've
read that style guide already. i'll do better next time.

"Whoever saves one life saves the whole world in time." --Talmud

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