Re: Enter the build sheriff: Jacob.

[Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>]

See:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=70710

This seems reasonably important for GNOME2.0 to me, since its a
regression from GNOME 1.4 where you could turn the computer off and
restart directly without logging out, but I don't know how things will
play out.

-Seth

On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 17:34, David Bordoley wrote:
> Seth,
> 
> Is the logout dialog going to be fixed as well. I have a bug,72602,
> which proposes a logout dialog similar to the winXP logout dialog. This
> is possibly the only thing i like in WinXP :) Would love your info.
> 
> dave
> 
> On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 20:23, Seth Nickell wrote:
> > We don't use "yes/no" or "no/yes". I suspect that will bother you too,
> > but if that is the case, please address that issue rather than knocking
> > down straw men. "no/yes" is very awkward and would be a big strike
> > against the G2 button ordering. But we strongly recommend against using
> > dialogues with "yes", "no" buttons. So in compliant applications this
> > situation should not occur. 
> > 
> > The loose principal behind this is that dialogues represent actions, and
> > it is better to phrase them in an active form, rather than as a
> > conversational interface. Thus figuratively the user performs the
> > action, rather than consenting to an action the computer performs.
> > 
> > (there are still a number of "no/yes" dialogues in GNOME2, particularly
> > in gnome games, there just wasn't enough time to convert all of them,
> > but I think the important dialogues have been converted)
> > 
> > This contains a theoretical justification for the G2 button order:
> > http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2002-February/msg00317.html
> > 
> > This contains the relevant results of a rather informal user test that
> > at least provides some "user testing evidence":
> > http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2002-February/msg00328.html
> > 
> > -seth
> > 
> > On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 09:27, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > > When we can't afford the testing, we have to go with prior art and
> > > > research and general principles based on those, and that is 100% the
> > > > right approach.
> > > 
> > > Prior art without understanding which bits are good or caused by 20 year
> > > old lawsuits ?  Oh dear me.
> > > 
> > > > The problem is that the fastest way to accomodate traditional users is
> > > > usually to add a configuration option. That's the trap we have to
> > > > avoid at all costs, in favor of fixing the defaults to address the
> > > > root issues.
> > > 
> > > Broken is still broken. When was the last time you read in a newspaper 
> > > about someone being asked a no/yes question ?
> > > 
> > > Let me quote google 
> > > 
> > > 	yes/no	2.3 million hits	(a lot are yes,no,no things
> > > 	no/yes	640,000 hits		 on both of these due to google)
> > > 
> > > 	"yes or no"	441,000
> > > 	"no or yes"	4870
> > > 
> > > Begin to get the picture ?
> > > 
> > > 441,000 web page authors know the right ordering. 
> > > 
> > > Alan
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > desktop-devel-list mailing list
> > desktop-devel-list gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers