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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Proposal for re-organizing konqueror's config dialogs
From:       Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date:       2004-09-25 17:50:34
Message-ID: 200409251750.34948.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On Saturday 25 September 2004 02:58, Gustavo Sverzut Barbieri wrote:
> Em Qui 23 Set 2004 13:53, Aaron Seigo escreveu:
> > On September 23, 2004 10:37, Sébastien Laoût [temporar] wrote:
> > > I would prefer a flatter thing, since humans are not so good at
> > > browsing a tree (see KControl) and the flat config only add one item to
> > > the File Management section (+2-1=+1) :
> >
> > not only that, but this structure will be echoed in KControl.. keep that
> > in mind, as this will make kcontrol have that much deeper of a hierarchy.
>
> Why not keep konq config just in konq? Why do we have to put it in
> kcontrol?

The future KControl will not have it, judging from what ideas people suggests. 
I think it's a good idea, too.


Cheers,

		Frans


>
> I see a trend to put app config in kcontrol and I don't see any reason for
> it. IMHO KControl should be responsible for system settings, maybe apps
> that don't have their own appwindow, like some kde-daemons.
>
> I know konq is a special kde component, but I disagree with it in kcontrol.
_______________________________________________
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]