folks: "the foot" is _not_ important right now!

[sungod <as387 yfn ysu edu>]

Samuel Solon wrote:

> I'm not so much in favor of following a particular other GUI but there
> seems to have been a convergence in applications that the first
> "application" menu is the "File" menu which contains the way of ending the
> application and the "filing" operations (whether actual disk files are used
> or not).

the whole reason why i even responded to this gentleman's enthusiasm
about the foot menu was so we could answer, for once and because of the
necessity, whether it is better to pursue better design or to pursue
compatibility with other gui's. i'd again like to reiterate that
_before_ we start compiling our feature lists or codeless proposals, we
need to have foundations such as this laid down in stone. let's not even
question the gnome menu yet; let's take care of those first items first.

in fact, maybe we ought to impose upon ourselves as a mailing list that
if we have a pet feature we'd like to debate, we should not mention it
yet but study it, research it, and test it while we try to work on the
underlying psychological principles first. this way we can avoid turning
menus into flamewars while we actually find out what is _really_ the
best course of action.

> There are so few standards on Unix that to abandon such a widely followed
> practice should only be done if there is a significant advantage.

careful who you're calling a "standard" there, bub! :) i just popped
open emacs and saw the first menu labeled "buffers" and it did _not_
have "quit" at the bottom. :) nor did moonlight creator, vi, or
electriceyes. the point is, i think we have a little more lattitude than
you'd like to attribute to us. keep an open mind, and research,
research, research.

> I've
> never heard any really good arguments made in favor of the "foot" menu
> other than it being "uniquely gnome" or "logical".

as if "logical" wasn't a good enough reason. :) c'mon, let's not get
tied up in this. let's get the foundation principles worked out, and i
have a feeling these simple questions of organization will take care of
themselves when we have the "hows" and "whys" laid down.

> Another consideration is that people will continue to use non-gnome
> software along with gnome (for example xemacs) and most of it follows the
> "File" menu practice. Again, gnome should be moving towards unifying
> application interfaces not breaking them by being different for the sake of
> being different.

if we could please avoid inflammatory remarks like "different for the
sake of being different" which belittles rather than taking actual
presented evidence (for or against difference) into account, i feel we
could be more productive. if we could address the question of _goals_
(better design or compatibility?) i'm sure the "little issues" like
these will work themselves out in the end. thank you.

> I would never argue that the menubar model that applications have been
> using for so many years is optimal but it has becoming ingrained in
> people's minds. Making minor changes in it is disruptive and I doubt it
> will really improve usability significantly.

can you please test this for us? this seems to have been the most hotly
contended argument and i'm sure we're all equally tired of conjecturing
and want to see some actual results. fwiw, the results i've seen on this
list have been equally divided, although until patrick expressed his
enthusiasm about the foot, the only research we had to go on was bowie
poag, who had drawn up his own mockups, showed his so (who got mad, he
said), and then subsequently demonstrated that he lacked any
understanding of the subject we were debating at the time. :) i believe
it was tom vogt who showed the foot menu to his nephew (or someone;
pardon if i'm recalling incorrectly... the actual discussion is archived
on the gnome website for anyone who cares enough about proper
attribution) and his nephew said "oh cool" or something like that.
hardly scientific; we need some real research which shows whether good
design is more or less important than doing what everyone else does.
-- 
 ______(sungod)_____________________________________
| To ensure privacy and data integrity this message |
| has been encrypted by using dual rounds of ROT-13 |
 --------------------------(as387@yfn.ysu.edu)------