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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Icons on Buttons - again
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <ingo.kloecker () epost ! de>
Date:       2002-01-19 19:13:27
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 19 January 2002 18:47, Thomas Zander wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 19, 2002 at 04:44:57PM +0000, Mike Richardson wrote:
> > On Saturday 19 January 2002 2:57 pm, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > > Excuse me for stating the obvious; the button is an icon AND a
> > > word. If you seperate them then there is no gain in using the
> > > icons. Please don't make the mistake that there is suppost to be
> > > an icon for every button; that was never the purpose!
> > > The icon complements the word and both together will be able to
> > > show a more consistent desktop.
> >
> > Sorry, I think this is wrong. The icon is a visual representation
> > of the action that the button performs; the text is a textual
> > description of what the button does. They __individually__ mean the
> > same thing.
>
> This is your opinion on what the rules (should) be.

And I agree with Mike's opinion (as all other people who raised their 
voices do more or less). You are the only one who hasn't got a problem 
with this. IMO buttons with the same icons which do different things 
are bad because the very reason for having icons on button is not 
eye-candy but to make it possible for the user to quickly find the 
right button without the need to read all button texts. If two buttons 
have the same icon it's obviously not possible to find the right button 
without reading the button text. But then again the icons are useless.

> The system is being written by the KDE authors, the rules are not yet
> made. I don't say my opinion is the best there is; but yours adds
> little to the usability of KDE.

You are right, KDE is written by the KDE authors. But it's written _for 
the users_. Therefore we should always consider the users' point of 
view and never our point of view or else we'll end up with something 
like Emacs (disclaimer: I like Emacs) which is nice for geeks but 
completely unusable for the average user.

- From the users' point of view the above situation has to be avoided 
(IMO, of course).

Regards,
Ingo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE8ScVaGnR+RTDgudgRAlk3AJ9uZAVSxTbtuS9RBXLKuN7wL858KwCgswaH
o8IWVHnEdSp/s/aeOq6atkE=
=i6pC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]