- From: "Ben 'The Con Man' Kahn" <xkahn cybersites com>
- To: Preben Randhol <randhol dusken4 samfundet ntnu no>
- cc: Peter Bortas <peter idonex se>, gnome-gui-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Print
- Date: Thu, 9 Jul 1998 11:19:55 -0400 (EDT)
On 9 Jul 1998, Preben Randhol wrote:
> * "Ben 'The Con Man' Kahn" <firstname.lastname@example.org
> | Ahhh... But what if it's a gnome icon? Then it isn't confusing
> | at all. (It'll look like the mac.)
> I think I already explained why using a pixmap isn't such a good idea.
Yes you did. But I disagree. I don't recall the thrust of your
argument, but here's why I think the pixmap idea is the best.
(1) It will be very easy to recognise a gnome app. (Oh! There's the
(2) The pixmap won't change size depending on the application. gless and
gConfigApplication will have the same size menu item.
(3) Users are already used to menu items which come from pictures.
(Netscape for the Mac, for example.) (Or the icon menu on Windows!) If
this is a concern, we can have some sort of standard graphic which is
added to a pixmap to represent the fact that a menu will open when
(4) Umm... Well, that's it. I coulod start talking about why such a menu
is a good idea in the first place, but you get the idea.
While I'm on this rant, I think that each application should
export some of it's functions. The application configuration dialog
should be useable by remote applications, for example.
------------------------------------ |\ _,,,--,,_ ,) ----------
Benjamin Kahn /,`.-'`' -, ;-;;'
(212) 924 - 2220 |,4- ) )-,_ ) /\
email@example.com --------------- '---''(_/--' (_/-' ---------------
If you love something, write it in C; if it compiles, it is yours;
if it doesn't, it never was.
] [Thread Prev