Re: GWP and 'the foot'

[sungod <as387 yfn ysu edu>]

J. Patrick Narkinsky wrote:
> 
> On Sat, 31 Oct 1998, sungod wrote:
> 
> > which is more important, solid design or similarity to existing gui's?
> > and to what extent?
> 
> Solid Design.  If people want a mediocre user interface, they can get one.
> OTOH, I don't think we should get too crazy.  The obvious question is
> 'What's too crazy'?  For example, I would call pie-menus too crazy.
> 
> I don't think the foot is too crazy.  Anyone of minimal intelligence can
> figure it out in a matter of seconds, and it saves us from worse things
> (esp. the exit/file close amibguity).

i agree with the separation between file-level menu choices and
application-level menu choices (as i should; it was my proposal
initially!), but would like to know if there's still anybody hanging out
here who thinks that we should follow other gui's in menu layout (or in
_any_ design decision) and why.

on another topic, what is the differentiation you make, patrick? i
personally would _like_ to see a pie menu implementation for gnome, as
it's a thoroughly researched system with high marks for efficiency.
perhaps this could be a gnome-library option: menus as menubars, pies,
right-clickable, etc. etc. etc., user choose... but this is getting into
feature requests again so i only mention it as an aside. what i _really_
want to know is, what makes pie-menus "too crazy" but a foot menu "not
too crazy?" this, too, is an important differentiation. what
characteristics of a design idea do you look at to make this decision?
-- 
 ______(sungod)_____________________________________
| To ensure privacy and data integrity this message |
| has been encrypted by using dual rounds of ROT-13 |
 --------------------------(as387@yfn.ysu.edu)------