Re: extra menus on panel

Dion Detterer <> wrote:
> However, I think we should take a step back first, and look at GNOME as
> a whole.  Do you agree that the first step to building a good GUI is to
> flesh out an object heirachy so that we can create a system where
> objects behave in a consistent manner?

actually, I don't. maybe it's because among the first things I realized upon
taking a c++ class was that object orientation is useful, but not always.

I don't think users - and especially not novice users - think oo. I think
the document-centric proposal is more to the point. users think in TASKS.
"gotta write a letter", "have to change my homepage", "e-mail my fiance".

this is part of my criticism of the icewm example dan posted. users DON'T
think "networking" when they access their e-mails. and I doubt that users
think in object hierarchies.

so much for the general approach, let's look at the details:

> One thing I've been thinking of (and I know how whacked-out this will
> sound) is that containers hold container-space, and container-space
> holds objects.  When you right-click the icon of a folder and select
> 'delete', you operate on the folder, whereas when you right-click inside
> a folder which is open infront of you and select 'delete' (which should
> be greyed), nothing should happen.  You are operating on the empty space
> *inside* the folder, and not the folder itself, and no-one expects to be
> able to delete thin-air, nor do they expect it to delete the folder
> itself.

this is quite correct, but I don't see your point yet.

> Where I'm going with this is that both the panel and the desktop are
> subclasses of "container-space" without respective containers (unless
> you count the hidden folder in which the desktop resides).

what does that mean for the layout of the panel, the actions a user can do
to it and so on?

I don't get your point. sorry, maybe I'm dumb when it comes to oo things
(I've always prefered procedural programming and I stick with c in spite of
knowing a dozen other languages).

The universe does not have laws -- it has habits, and habits can be broken.

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