From kde-usability  Fri Jan 16 13:54:07 2004
From: Leo Savernik <l.savernik () aon ! at>
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2004 13:54:07 +0000
To: kde-usability
Subject: Re: simpler UI for konqy
Message-Id: <200401161454.09395.l.savernik () aon ! at>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-usability&m=107426094516368

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

Am Donnerstag, 15. Januar 2004 23:47 schrieb Luke Sandell:
[...]
> 1.To maintain the status quo (read: user's expectation). Microsoft started
> this with IE 4.

The current konqueror already fulfills the expectation. It's just the toolbars 
that don't get changed (regardless of part- and plugin-specific toolbars), 
and the application is not renamed.

And just because Microsoft does something, it does not imply we should do it, 
too.
>
[...]
> > What's the advantage of it? I can tell you a disadvantage: It's a mess to
> > maintain.
>
> Actually, no. KHTML is implemented as a KPart, meaning it is decoupled from
> the kfm base.

It is not trivial to make buttons appear/disappear depending on the part which 
are not controlled by this very part.
>
> > As I already mentionened elsewhere,
> > if there is the need for a distinct web browser in KDE,
>
> There is.

Is there really? How many users would refuse to use a browser that has an up 
button?
>
> > it must be an
> > application of its own.Everything else leads to an incoherent patchwork
> > that will make neither side happy.
>
> I am quite happy with Konqueror, as are many folks, including Linus
> Torvalds.

Fully agreed.
>
[...]

mfg
	Leo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQFAB+z/j5jssenUYTsRAlfXAJ9moczLIyefuwbjICha1VP6Bo1QbgCgs3Ie
TT9ITpeGHrrCJQWfWwyhijA=
=ARxC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

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