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

List:       kde-look
Subject:    Re: quit/close was: User Interface Standards
From:       Peter Penz <peter.penz () jk ! uni-linz ! ac ! at>
Date:       1999-09-15 10:27:58
[Download RAW message or body]

zander@microweb.nl wrote:
> 
> > A short summary:
> > - Close closes the document (NOT window).
> >   If an app. doesn't support a resulting "grey window"
> >   => leave Close away from the file-menu.
> >   Is this ok for you?
> 
> I think you should close the document and open an empty one
> for this, don't take away functionality the user expects.
Sounds good. I haven't seen many applications, which have a "grey"
screen with no document in it. I only heard from KWord, that this is
possible there...

But I agree with you completely now:
- Close closes the document and
  opens an empty one (will fix that in
  the standards soon).

> 
> > - Quit does the same as the X-Button:
> >   closing the window. It's in the hand of the
> >   developer to quit the application after closing
> >   it's window(s).
> 
> I wanted a application quit. Closing a bunch of windows.
> This is a Windows thing.
> But is seems you changed my opinion, in a world where the
> distinction between different windows of the same application
> is to big (multiple desktops etc.)
> 
> I vote for this as well.
I think I'll drink a big beer now :-)=)

> 
> >
> >   Note: if you have an app. like gimp with a
> >   main-window and several sub-windows => closing
> >   the main-window results in closing the subwindows.
> >   (imitation of an Multiple Document Interface).
> >
> >   Ok?
> 
> Yep.
Another beer...

> >
> > I discuss about this Close/Quit now about for 2 months - it would be
> > great, if we could finish it before the 21st century ;-)
> >
> 
> Anyone want to cancel the obove statements?
> if no -> finished. ;-)
Fine! 

One statement about "finished": I don't think the standards will ever be
finished - we always will have to improve them. But it's important to
find a common startpoint and I'm happy that it seems, that we reached
this point now with Quit/Close.

> 
> ps: reading it again;
> in Windows there is a application screen which contains its windows.
> Kinda like the screens used on amiga. We have abandoned that behaviour
> some time ago. This brought on my confusion.
I was confused the last 2 months very often too. I also changed my
opinion...

> ps2:
> >
> > I'm wondering: Unix is the only OS, where this Exit was invented. The
> > Mac, Windows, Amiga, ST, ... - no desktop needed that.
> 
> Funny, looking at windows/amiga/mac programs I see they all use a "program
> with loads a windows" approuch. All these applications have a Close and a
> Exit (also named quit).
> 
> There is no distiction between exit and quit on your side is there??
Not really. Most people will say, that Exit=Quit. But because the 'Exit'
in the old standards was defined as 'quit an APPLICATION' and Ctrl+Q was
the key-binding to quit an application, a friend of me (Gernot)
suggested to use Quit. 

The behaviour of Exit/Quit in other OSs is exactly the same as we have
NOW in the standards. The old behaviour was a typical UNIX-thing:
developers designed rules for developers, not users. Thats why KDE,
Gnome, ... are there: they want to give the user a common look&feel of
all applications. Thats why we need User-Interface-Standards. It's more
work for the developers, but the users (and I hope also the developers
:-) are happy with the consisten result. 

Thanks!

Peter

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