On Fri, Mar 31, 2000 at 01:05:11AM +0100, Rik Hemsley wrote:
> #if Marko Samastur
> > Once for a change, I'll try to be very brief :)
> 
> Me too.
> 
> > Rik Hemsley wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Dynamic menus can be treated this way: the program tells the
> > > > menucontroller (kaction?) to create the according menu which will be
> > > > expanded with the dynamic items before shown.
> > > 
> > > Ok. That's quite a lot of configurability.
> > > Considering that about 0.1% of users will actually be bothered enough
> > > to change their menu and toolbars, perhaps we should just let them
> > > edit the XML as they can currently ?
> > 
> > I'd just like to add a warning about this obsessivness with
> > configurability. I think this is one of the problems with Windows
> > environment, which often gives you twelve ways of doing things, but none
> > good.
> 
> Right. There's something to be said for concentrating development
> efforts on truly worthwhile features, such as our office apps,
> stability, interoperability, etc. Configurability should really
> be an afterthought. Design the thing well in the first place
> and worry about the small proportion of users who want things to
> work a certain way later.

Don't configurability and good design go hand in hand? IMO a well designed
application can be made very configurable, although not all the options should 
be visible for the user. Look at kparts. It is a good design and it provides
configurability. 

Wilco