From kde-core-devel Wed Nov 09 09:29:12 2005 From: Olivier Goffart Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 09:29:12 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: KDE (vs GNOME) Message-Id: <200511091029.17669.ogoffart () kde ! org> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=113152857712481 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart1362940.3dNupOohuW" --nextPart1362940.3dNupOohuW Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Le Mardi 8 Novembre 2005 11:14, Stephan Binner a =E9crit=A0: > User levels don't work, see previous discussions. Citing such reports as > argumentation for it is poor and doesn't change this fact. Each time someone suggest that, here or on kde-usability, there is someone = to=20 say "it's bad, see previous discussions" and that's all But what are the "previous discussion" you are referring to, have you a li= nk=20 or something that could let me know. =46irst, "user levels" should be defined. 1) is it different UI depending the level ? 2) different default option depending the level ? 3) putting all avanced option in an advanced tab ? 4) or removing all the option to put them in another hiden application (KTweekUI / GConfEditor / RegEdit ) I think that it has been said, on "previous discussion" that #1 is bad, =20 because it doesn't let the user the change to evoluate progressively. =46or the same reason, i think #4 is bad too, and even, the setting is more= =20 difficult to find, outside of the application. But the #2 (which is, if i understand correctly, what has been suggested in= =20 the original post) looks verry fine Personaly, i like the #2, but i am strongly against #4 --nextPart1362940.3dNupOohuW Content-Type: application/pgp-signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQBDccFtz58lY8jWrL0RAtuWAJ92w9XcUny8fX9TxA3Xaqwmi8+G7QCdEUL1 566/y//xf4ZciFZBodl6Vj0= =zHNx -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart1362940.3dNupOohuW--