Re: Comments on dialog proposal

[Brian Crescimanno <darksheer fotographix com>]

On Wed, 2001-09-05 at 16:56, Adam Elman wrote:
> At 4:37 PM -0400 9/5/01, Liam Quin wrote:
> >On Wed, Sep 05, 2001 at 01:05:04PM -0700, Adam Elman wrote:
> >>  "Done" is less of a problem, but I return to my original objection to
> >>  "Done" by noting that it has absolutely no information about what's
> >>  going to happen when the button is clicked.
> >
> >I think the problem is you're looking for a verb to mean
> >     stop showing this window and don't do anything else
> >
> >You don't need a button for that -- the window manager's "x" is
> >sufficient.
> 
> I disagree, mainly because of the differences in where the "Close" 
> option is in different WMs and different WM themes.  On the other 
> hand, what you describe is exactly what MacOS X does in System 
> Preferences.
> 
> >But if you do have one, I always liked "Dismiss" because
> >it implies only that the window is going away.
> 
> I think it's more common in everyday language to talk about "closing" 
> a window than to "dismiss" a window, so I prefer "close".
> 
> >Maybe "go away" would be even better, and might make people smile, too.
> 
> Y'know, I thought about that too, but I think the "cuteness" would 
> get _really_ irritating as a standard dialog feature.

I definately prefer "close" to either "dismiss" or "go away."  I agree
that "go away" has kind of a laid back feel to it, but it would start to
get annoying after a while.

What if, perhaps, the button said "I'm done" rather than just done. 
That implies to the user "I'm done with this window" which suggests that
the window will subsequently go away.

Brian