[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: My GWorkspace feature request

From: MJ Ray
Subject: Re: My GWorkspace feature request
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 17:48:38 -0000
User-agent: slrn/ (Linux)

Philippe C.D Robert <address@hidden> wrote:
> I do not, at least not intentionally. Contextual menus are as much 
> hidden as any other submenu of the app's menu.

How does one detach a context menu to make it continuously visible?  I
do that often with submenus when I use them a lot.

> And it is definitely 
> faster to point-click an object directly than to select it and move the 
> mouse to the app's menu and find/select the submenu of choice.

Huh?  Surely you have to select it and then activate the menu, else it
would break the concept of "targeted actions"...

>> The object you point at, or the object you selected?  If you are going 
>> to
>> have context menus, you have to deal with things like that too and will
>> probably always confuse people.
> What is your point, the correct way of dealing with submenus is covered 
> by the API specs. If this is done in a clean way then users will not be 
> confused.

My point is that some context menu supporters seem to not want "targeted
actions".  Instead, they want some sort of "action on object" which is
not in the UIG at all.

> The opposite is true, you operate on objects not on menus. [...]

The development platform is object-orientated.  The GNUstep user interface
uses objects as a metaphor to help you do actions.  This is not the
same thing, deliberately so.  The objects that you see in the user
interface are a metaphor to allow you to carry out actions.  They are
not the actions.

If you want to make a step-look full-OO UI, then go on, but that isn't
step, is it?

> The fact that *you* call it 'EWB' does not mean that it is 'EWB'.

If you read my sig, you can see I do not claim otherwise.  I am not a
god and neither are you.  Neither of us has anything other than an a
opinion on this.  Although, what is fact is that our current UIG has no
role for context menus and none of their supporters have yet justified
them to everyone's satisfaction.

> And I can only repeat myself, contextual menus do not alter or
> negatively affect the application main menu. If they do then it's the
> developer's fault, and has IMHO nothing to do with the overall concept
> of contextual menus.

I think it does, as the only way for them not to screw consistency is
to only include elements already on the app menu.  Therefore, developers
will have to maintain both.  Because developers write the app, they will
know what is on the hidden menus, so they will use them primarily and
the app menu is more likely to break.

Yes, I know the guidelines will say that they should check both, but the
very fact that we are having this debate illustrates that even the best
and brightest developers don't always follow the guidelines.

> Well, I don't know you, but I think one can call me a big NEXTSTEP fan,
> especially because of its UI concepts and style - but still I am open
> for good inventions, useful additions and enhancements. And while I
> hope that GNUstep one day will be a good successor to NEXTSTEP/OPENSTEP
> I also hope that it continues to evolve, and this certainly includes
> the UI as well.

As do I, but, as the saying goes: "In God We Trust -- all others must
bring data."  Trying to screw consistency by coding it into important
apps and conducting a "UI change by stealth" should be resisted.  That
way is the road to hell.

MJR/slef   My Opinion Only and possibly not of any group I know.
      http://mjr.towers.org.uk/   jabber://address@hidden
Creative copyleft computing services via http://www.ttllp.co.uk/
       Thought: "Changeset algebra is really difficult."

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]