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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: KMenuEdit vs. direct manipulation [was: Re: RMB - once again]
From:       Sander Devrieze <s.devrieze () pandora ! be>
Date:       2003-08-13 18:40:20
[Download RAW message or body]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Op woensdag 13 augustus 2003 08:51, schreef Christoph Niemann:
<snip>
> If you are planning on reordering the menu big time it might be easier
> to use the menu editor. Usually, however, it's just that one paticular
> application that you'd rather have somewhere else (for example: bring
> the one more often used application one level up). In this case it's
> rather cumbersome to start up another application, change the entry and
> close the application again.

I guess that people who uses MS Windows postpone the reorganisation of their 
menu until it's *too* ugly: so they will mostly needs to do more of these 
things.

<snip>
> Except for the last sentence, I very much agree with you here. There is
> no need to make the font changeable directly. There are seperate
> applications for that. Again, it is the complexity demanding a seperate
> application here: If you want to change a font you have many different
> input values. You can change the font name, the weight, italics, the
> size and so on. There is no unambiguous way to map all these inputs to
> direct manipulation with a two dimensional input device like a mouse.
>
> Reordering does not fall in this complex task category. Moving an entry
> somewhere in the menu does exaxtly map to mouse movements. That's why
> it is so easy to understand.

I don't agree here: it is complex: changing the icons, changing key shortcuts, 
resetting of settings, changing path to executables, changing the names, 
changing the comment, moving/deleting/copying items, adding entries 
(submenus, applications (which needs a command like e.g. kcontrol -caption 
"%c" %i %m),...),...

> > You also have to keep the function of applications in mind.
> > Applications like cat are succesful because they just do their job
> > and not more. Bloated things aren't easy to maintain and so the
> > chance for bugs is bigger. It's also more difficult for the user to
> > know the real function of the application if it's bloatware. There
> > are more of these bloat problems (also usability) in KDE. Luckily
> > already some of these problems are fixed (e.g. kaddressbook-kmail
> > separation).
>
> Indeed, I am not at all for the swiss army knife approach. There are
> good reasons for having different applications for different tasks.
> OTOH, it is not good to split up applications too much either.

I don't agree 100%: we may split as much is needed for technical reasons but 
we need to combine things in the way Kontact and Konqueror for example does.

<snip>

- -- 
Mvg, Sander Devrieze.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/OoYcK+G8aHNHCSMRAnY1AKDOWYYfT0jxJvrLwK7uc6ZLN1Go7wCeIodK
KZIxgSRKTs4bVDmMpdAp1u0=
=puLe
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

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