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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: Changing my mind: reverting my menubar,
From:       David Jarvie <djarvie () kde ! org>
Date:       2010-11-07 19:20:48
Message-ID: 201011071920.49202.djarvie () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]


On Sunday 07 November 2010 19:12:46 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:31:44 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
> > > > Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> > > > > I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to
> > > > > toggle UI items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or
> > > > > statusbar should be labeled "Show/hide Foo" depending on the
> > > > > visibility of Foo rather than implemented as a checkable "[ ]
> > > > > Show Foo" item.
> > > > 
> > > > Having followed the discussion and how you fought to get this
> > > > change in, I'm a bit saddened that it turned out to not work so
> > > > well in practice.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we can tackle the underlying issue in another way. If I
> > > > understood the problem correctly, it basically boils down to
> > > > 
> > > > [X] Show Foo
> > > > 
> > > > textually implying the opposite of the action that the user is
> > > > going to trigger if (s)he clicks it. If we keep the checkboxes,
> > > > maybe we are able to change the text, so that it is obvious that
> > > > it describes the current state rather than an action by changing
> > > > the verb into an adjective:
> > > > 
> > > > [X] Foo shown
> > > > [X] Foo visible
> > > > [X] Foo enabled
> > > > 
> > > > Just an idea...
> > > 
> > > IMHO that does not really fix the problem. I think the real problem
> > > is that we think that an additional qualifier like "Show" or
> > > "shown" is necessary. As if our users would not understand what
> > > the state of the checkbox preceding the menu entry signifies.
> > > 
> > > I just had a look at Firefox (maybe others can check applications
> > > from other "vendors" like Apple, Microsoft, etc.)
> > > 
> > > Firefox has the options to show/hide certain UI components in the
> > > View menu (while we have them in the Settings menu). In this menu
> > > Firefox simply lists the UI components names without any verbs,
> > > adjectives, etc., i.e.
> > > 
> > > View
> > > 
> > > Toolbars
> > > 
> > > [x] Navigation Toolbar
> > > [x] Bookmarks Toolbar
> > > 
> > > [x] Status Bar
> > > 
> > > Sidebar
> > > 
> > > [ ] Bookmarks
> > > [ ] History
> > > 
> > > Does it really matter that Firefox has those options in the View
> > > menu while we have them in the Settings menu? I don't think so.
> > > 
> > > So, why don't we simply get rid of "Show" (and the "Shown" in
> > > Settings-
> > > 
> > > > Toolbars Shown). IMHO those qualifiers are totally superfluous in
> > > 
> > > combination with checkboxes. Our convention to add the "Show" does
> > > stem from a time where we could (and did) hide the checkboxes of
> > > checkable menu entries. Apparently, with Qt 4 the checkboxes of
> > > checkable menu entries cannot be hidden. Since we are already at
> > > Qt 4.7 it seems very unlikely that QtDF will ever change this. So
> > > why insist on a convention that does not make any sense anymore?
> > 
> > I agree about removing "Show" etc. But if this is done, the menu
> > items should be moved to the View menu. In the Firefox example you
> > give, the menu name (View) puts the meaning of the menu items in
> > context and acts as the verb, giving the necessary hint to the user
> > that the checkboxes determine the view state of the respective
> > items. Removing the verb and leaving them in the Settings menu would
> > IMO make their meaning a bit unclear.
> 
> Do you really think this would be a bit unclear? What else would an 
> unchecked UI element in any menu mean?
> 
> Quite frankly, I cannot image the number of users which grasp "[ ] Show 
> Toolbar" but not "[ ] Toolbar" to be significant. Surely, there are a 
> lot of not that computer literate people (like my parents) who 
> understand neither one nor the other. But people who understand the 
> former, but not the latter? I claim that such people do not exist. Prove 
> me wrong! ;-)

I can't prove you wrong. :-(  What I'm saying is that putting the items in the View \
menu would make it a bit clearer because the menu items would be unambiguously \
related to viewing, so there would be less opportunity to misunderstand them. I quite \
agree with you that there are people who probably wouldn't understand either, but \
that shouldn't stop us trying to make things as clear as possible for those who might \
be capable of understanding.

-- 
David Jarvie.
KDE developer.
KAlarm author -- http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

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