Re: [Usability] Readonly indicator in window title (gedit)

[Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>]

On Thu, 16 Sep 2004, John Spray wrote:

> Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 18:45:10 +0100
> From: John Spray <jcs116 york ac uk>
> To: usability gnome org
> Subject: [Usability] Readonly indicator in window title (gedit)
>
> Hi,
>
> When updating gedit to comply with HIG2 about the indication of modified
> files, I've come across another problem: indicating readonly files.

I was thinking that using Italics might be a good idea*, but it would need
to be as well as not instead of any other system.  It would be
identifyable on the whole string so you wouldn't need to worry about the
read only label being bumped off the end of window title.

(* for a moment I thought the window title changed from bold to normal
to indicate that a document had been dirtied but I think I may have
just imagined it, but it might be actually workable idea to provide
more visual feedback.)

> (sidenote: If the HIG's going to specify modification indicator,
> shouldn't it specify readonly indicator too?)
>
> In gedit right now, we append " (readonly)" in the window title, and " -
> RO" in the tab title.  The is annoying, because it means there are two
> separate bits of code for generating the title+modifiers.  So, what's
> best?

Concatonatingwordstogethermightbeusefulforvariablesinyourcodebutisnotsuchagoodideainuservisiblelabels,seewhatImean?
(maybeimjustjealousbecauseIamnotverygoodatgermanwhohavegreatdescriptivewordsforeverything)

Concatenating words is not generally a good idea in English
(I apologise in advance if that sounds condescending, it is not my
intention to be in any way condescending and that I'm Irish and you are
English and that we regularly bastardize and do other horrible things with
your language is purely coincidental.)

I think it should be "Read only" but I am not absolutely what the
capitalisation should be.

Strings need to be internationalised which makes the string length a
non-issue, there really is no benifit to concatenating the words.

Some one in Redmond with a hyphen fetish (Lisp programmer perhaps?) seemed
to think putting (Read-Only) at the end of the title was a good idea.

> 1. Leave it as it is, put up with ugly code duplication and
> inconsistancy, and extra translation string.

This is yet another downside to reinventing the window manager as Tabs.
The Tab Title should match the window title verbatim.

> 2. Change both to be RO

> I worry about 2 because: how common is the abbreviation RO, and how
> easily translated is it?  As it is, the RO is kind of explained when the
> user looks at the window title as well as the tab title.

Definately not, acronyms are bad.
If RO was a good idea why not shorten it further to R.

You give pretty good reasons yourself for not doing it.

If we want something that can fit into a tab without getting too much in
the way perhaps we could put another character beside the * asterisk, a +
plus maybe perhaps a superscript 'R' or perhaps something else (warning
random idea, possibly crack) a little lock icon or red circle with a line
through it overlayed on the document title icon?

> 3. Change both to be (readonly)

Consistancy is good.

> 4. $(Your brilliant idea here)
>
>
> I don't think 3 is likely to be popular because it'll take up too much
> space in the tab bar.
>
> I think 4 is a great idea :-)

1.  steal underpants
2.  ???
3.  profit $$$

but 4 is clearly the best idea.


Thanks for reading


Sincerely

Alan Horkan

http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/
Inkscape, Draw Freely http://inkscape.org
Free SVG Clip Art http://OpenClipArt.org