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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: kdemultimedia (setCheckedState)
From:       "Jamethiel Knorth" <jamethknorth () hotmail ! com>
Date:       2004-05-20 6:08:05
Message-ID: BAY7-F101x1yolYvzFv0002cbc1 () hotmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

>From: Peter Postmus <p.postmus@st.hanze.nl>
>Date: Thu, 20 May 2004 01:30:34 +0200
>
>On Wednesday 19 May 2004 21:12, Jamethiel Knorth wrote:
> > >From: Harri Porten <porten@froglogic.com>
> > >Date: Wed, 19 May 2004 14:01:12 +0200 (CEST)
> > >
> > >On Wed, 19 May 2004, David Faure wrote:
> > > > > I have to agree with Scott and Malte for the same reasons they 
>gave.
> > >
> > >Why
> > >
> > > > > wasn't the first solution chosen?
> > > >
> > > > Do you really think "Toolbar Foobar Visible" makes a good menu item
> > >
> > >name?
> > >
> > >I'd just leave out verbs/adjectives, call it "Foobar Toolbar" and let
> > >the check mark denote whether it is visible or not. Easy and quick to
> > >understand. I see Mozilla does it this way, too.
> >
> > How is that easier to understand? That means absolutely nothing unless 
>you
> > already know what it means!
> >
> > "Okay, there is 'Main Toolbar', and it is checked. What is a checked
> > toolbar? Does that mean it exists?"
> >
> > If the entry states what it is going to do, that is straightforward.
> >
> > "The entry says, 'Hide Main Toolbar'. Gee, I bet it hides the main
> > toolbar."
>
>IMO there is one problem with this solution: you can't quickly see which
>toolbars are (not) shown. Instead, you'd have to the first word of every 
>item
>in the toolbars submenu. I think a checkbox is easier in this situation.
>
>That said, I think the current implementation of the in-menu checkbox needs
>improvement. Right now, if an option is deactivated, there's no way to tell
>it apart from any other menu entry (which might open a configuration 
>dialog).
>When an option is selected, an X is displayed inside a frame. I think the
>best solution would be to display an empty square (not a frame!) for
>unselected menu options, and a square with an X in case the option is
>selected. But that's probably another usability discussion alltogether...

Is it so difficult to look down the line of first words? I have never found 
this to be even slightly difficult. It's not like "Show" and "Hide" are very 
similar. Of course, I also usually already know which toolbars I have open, 
so I don't need to check.

>I also think the removal of verbs would make for a less cluttered 
>appearance,
>although I can live with them ;).

Removing the verb prevents it from stating any action whatsoever. It merely 
states an object. This isn't good.

> >
> > Toggling the text maintains that a menu entry always says what it will 
>do.
> > This is good for consistency throughout the system.
>
>So you're saying we should abandon checkboxes alltogether? (e.g., also in
>KConfig?)

Not even slightly. Keyword was 'menu'. Is KConfig a menu? Also, there are 
some occasions where checkboxes need to be used in menus. However, it is 
when it is actually a set of radios. See the icon size submenus.


The main point is for consistency, in that menu entries all follow one 
pattern. As often as possible, this is by stating an action (assuming that 
they will perform an action).

_________________________________________________________________
Stop worrying about overloading your inbox - get MSN Hotmail Extra Storage! 
http://join.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200362ave/direct/01/

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]