[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde
Subject:    RE: New KDE2.0 widget theme preview screenshot
From:       "Santiago Burbano" <santib () mtservicios ! com>
Date:       1999-07-06 17:39:47
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 06 Jul 1999, Mosfet wrote:
>> You think this turned into a flame?? No, for a group of what seems to be
>> primarily Linux users this was a relatively calm exchange ;-) Note I use
Linux
>> too...

>Of course, we can always try and make it a flame. :o)

;-D   (I bet somebody will try to).

>I think it is arrogant to state that Mac menubars are bad GUI design.
>The reason I think this is that Apple is using them a long, long time
>now. And keeps using them. Apple has a history of _very_ good GUI
>design. They always considered it very important. Well, Microsoft
>does so as well, but in another way; they go for the features, not
>for consitency. Which I call _bad_ GUI design.

That's not my point. My point is that it takes 2 mouse clicks and 1 move to
drop down a menu option if the application I want is not currently active.
The W95 way just takes 1 click as long as the option is visible. Worst case,
if the option is not visible it takes the same as Mac way. Even if you use
the focus-follows-mouse option, it is not as functional because it forces
you to arrange your desktop so you won't pass over any other window in your
way from the window to the menu (not always easy).

If I have two ways of doing the same thing, I always choose/like the
shortest one (like anybody else). It's not a question of personal
preferences, or some abstract design concept, it's just the plain laziness
that works all around the world. Is it good design? Is it bad? I don't care,
it's just __short__

IMHO, consistency is not a question of where the menubar is, but what its
elements are, how they behave, what shortcuts are available, etc. I agree
that W95 lacks consistency (among many other things ;-) ), but not because
it has a in-window menubar but because each application works differently
and you can hardly use what you learnt in one app on another one. But this
can also happen with an on-top menubar.

Anyway, there's another issue here (and I think KDE should learn from the
experience). Traditionally, Mac's programming world has been very much
smaller than Windows'. With fewer companies making software, it's easier to
ensure consistency and set GUI standards. Windows world is bigger, with
thousands of different companies producing applications. In this case,
consistency is not just difficult, it's a miracle. Not all the blame of W9X
inconsistency is for Micro$oft (although it's true that not even they are
consistent with themselves). Some steps are being done to avoid this
situation for KDE with the KDE-OK certification. I hope they will succeed or
we'll end up with the same mess W9X is living in right now.

Santiago


-- 
Send posts to:  kde@lists.netcentral.net
 Send all commands to:  kde-request@lists.netcentral.net
  Put your command in the SUBJECT of the message:
   "subscribe", "unsubscribe", "set digest on", or "set digest off"
PLEASE READ THE ARCHIVED MESSAGES AT http://lists.kde.org/ BEFORE POSTING
**********************************************************************
This list is from your pals at NetCentral <http://www.netcentral.net/>

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]