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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Getting rid of yes/no (was: Re: Ideas for kde3 part II)
From:       aleXXX <alexander.neundorf () gmx ! net>
Date:       2001-11-01 22:23:02
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thu 01 Nov 01 02:38, Mark Deneen wrote:
> Rolf Magnus wrote:
> >I see it exactly the opposite. If the user gets this dialog, but doesn't
> > want to quit, he probably activated the quit by accident and might not
> > even now that he did so. If the button says "Don't quit", the user
> > exactly knows what happens without reading the dialog text. The button
> > should contain the shortest possible description of what happens when
> > it's pressed. And when the user sees "Cancel", he needs to first read
> > what to cancel.
>
> I see the opposite.  If I don't know what I just did, or clicked
> something by accident.. my first reaction is to hit "Cancel".
>
>
> Not all actions will result in a "Don't Quit" situation.  I always know
> what cancel means, and it is always the last button in a dialog.
>
> I don't actually have to read anything, and I know I won't do something
> I don't intend to do. In fact, I don't even have to fully read anything,
> just scan for a word that looks like cancel.
>
> -M

This all sounds good, but in the special situation when closing an app and 
the app asks whether to save the changes, I also often wonder whether cancel 
means "cancel saving and cancel closing the app" or whether it only means 
"cancel this dialog and then proceed with closing the program". 

The problem here is probably that this are two actions (saving and closing), 
so it can be ambigous whether the cancel applies to both or only to the first.

Bye
Alex

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<

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