Re: [HIG] GtkMessageDialog

[murrayc t-online de (Murray Cumming)]

On Fri, 2002-12-06 at 12:56, Gregory Merchan wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 10:59:47AM +0100, Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 20:11, Gregory Merchan wrote:
> > > GtkButtonsType has GTK_BUTTONS_CLOSE, GTK_BUTTONS_CANCEL, and
> > > GTK_BUTTONS_YES_NO, none of which should be used.
> > 
> > Cancel should never be used? But it's used in the HIG's "reactor
> > meltdown" example.
> 
> The button is fine, insofar as it's the second button. But GTK_BUTTONS_CANCEL
> provides only the Cancel button; an alert (or any dialog) with only Cancel
> is what should not be used.

GtkButtonsType is an ORable flag, I believe. Plus, custom buttons can be
added afterwards with gtk_dialog_add_button().

> > > I say the alert image should be in a column all to itself, but the HIG
> > > doesn't. Doing so would also make leave GtkDialog an unsuitable parent
> > > class.

Actually, the HIG seems to agree with you:
http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/draft_hig/windows.html#alert-windows

> > > I would prefer to just see GtkMessageDialog removed and have a GtkAlert
> > > class.
> > 
> > Are you aware of any efforts to reconcile the HIG and GtkMessageDialog,
> > or to add something to libgnomeui for this? How can anyone reasonably be
> > expected to comply with the HIG if it requires such effort.
> 
> I'm not aware of any, but my awareness here is limited to the gnome mailing
> lists. As I understand it, the code should go into libegg for eventual
> inclusion in Gtk+ proper and libgnomeui should be just desktop "glue" like
> session management.

I believe that libegg is for new widgets. So far I'm not convinced that
GtkMessageDialog can't be improved instead.

> 
> Both Seth and I had written our own GtkAlert classes and (iirc) offered them
> for inclusion in Gtk+ proper. But this happened during a freeze and wasn't
> revisted later, afaik.
> 
> HIG 1.0 has some errors which I hope no one complies with. An override
> redirect alert would really suck; that's fixed in CVS.  Surprising to me
> there have been people who've gone to (IMO) great lengths to comply.
> Those great lengths shouldn't be necessary for compliance, and there's
> work being done already to eliminate some of them.
> 
> One thing I'd really like to see I mentioned here:
>   http://mail.gnome.org/archives/hig/2002-October/msg00018.html

If that isn't in bugzilla somewhere then it will never happen.

-- 
Murray Cumming
murray usa net
www.murrayc.com