[Usability] Re: on gconf-edit

[Brian Skahan <bskahan etria com>]

On Mon, 2004-10-11 at 20:18 +0200, Robert Fendt wrote:
> catastrophe, the latter thankfully is not. The user interface principle is
> very similar however. And that is what I find annoying; it is tedious to
> use and not concise. I hope people may now forgive me my crude comparison
> between gconf-editor and regedit. I must have been _really_ in a bad mood
> this morning.

What's a better UI for gconf-editor?  I really want to insert a back-in-the-day-editing-xml-config-files-on-punch-cards-bit but I'll refrain.  Many of the issues you (and many other people) raised could be addressed by making gconf-editor more approachable to people who feel they need more options than Aunt Tilly should have to handle.  Other than causing horrible flashbacks to windows 95, what's wrong with the interface?

2.8 got rid of the "You should not use this" warning, and added search.  HIG 2.0 is more strict about defining the function of node descriptions.

Search and description were the big things I wanted to see change, what else could improve?

-Brian

--
Brian Skahan <bskahan etria com>
Etria, LLP

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part