RE: GWP and 'the foot'

[Jan Gentsch <gentsch ifm uni-hamburg de>]

Jan Gentsch wrote:

> Samuel Solon wrote:
>
> > >
> > >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.
> > >
> >
> > It's baaaaaack! Of course maybe this time the discussion can go on without
> > the distracting flame wars.
> >
> > 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).
> >
> > 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. I've
> > never heard any really good arguments made in favor of the "foot" menu
> > other than it being "uniquely gnome" or "logical". If I remember correctly
> > from so long ago I think the "logical" argument went along with a proposal
> > to have the menu bar structured in a hierarchy that was to match an
> > (alleged) hierarchy of application objects.
> >
>
> I think there is a significant advantage. The separation between File level
> and Application level is logical and in fact already being used. Most "File"
> menus these day come with a seperator/seperators between the Application and
> the File related commands. From my personal experience I can only say that
> after a number of years of using netscape and nedit for example, I still
> sometimes choose exit instead of close and all my windows are gone (bummer).
> My strategy to avoid this has been to "close" windows using the button
> supplied by the window manager, but really that shouldn't be needed.
> The problem arises because there is a big difference between closing a
> document and closing the application but to little of a visual (and indeed
> often spacial) difference between the two.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> The breakage is little and easily understood.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> GUI of all vendors have been changing all the time, also order to improve
> usabilty (and of course the look). Some changes I found disruptive at first,
> but found them to be very productive latter.
>
> Jan.