Re: Menu items with icons

[Adam Chodorowski <archmage earthdome com>]

> > What would go on the foot menu?
> 
> Well, the current idea behind the foot menu is that it would hold
> operations that work on an application-level scope.  Things like Exit,
> About, and Preferences (assuming application-level preferences).  Those
> are the only commonly-agreed-upon items.  Other proposals have included
> moving Help there (countered by the argument that Help should always be a
> very obvious top-level menu item).
> 
> A few other proposals fluttered by quickly, like adding a list of
> currently-running GNOME apps for easy app-switching (arguably the domain
> of the WM).  I can't remember the others off hand.
> 
> The most prevalent reasoning behind the foot menu has been 1) good GNOME
> branding, through the foot icon (with a configurable option to change it
> to straight text, "GNOME", or "Program", or something like that), and 2)
> cleaning out the File menu, moving menu items that were put there for
> lack of a better place.  And plenty more....

It seems to me that the only reason is to have good GNOME branding. 
And that's a bad reason to implement something that is user-unfriendly.
Why it is user-unfriendly? Because it doesn't look like a normal 
menu-item. And that can be confusing for new users. 

If you want good GNOME branding, it would be more apropriate to have a
text stating that "this application is GNOME compliant" in the
about-box.
Possibly with a little foot to. And for those machines that have GNOME
installed, the foot on the panel is quite enough.

Sometimes I don't get you guys. You give references on the GNOME
homepage
to the UI Hall of Shame, and then go on implementing things that are in
that Hall of Shame. The use of a little graphic is in Hall of Shame, 
if I'm remembering correctly. So it the use of an 'Apply' button.
 
> Anybody here care to comment on this?

Yes, read the above. :)

-- 
Adam Chodorowski (archmage@earthdome.com)