[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: New start up splash screen annoyance...

From: Drew Adams
Subject: RE: New start up splash screen annoyance...
Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:45:18 -0700

> I don't think I would try out a button called "delete" if I don't have
> a clue just what it will delete.

"remove" is better here than "delete", BTW, for just that reason.

But the point is that you can only do so much in a tooltip, and to try to do
more than what it is designed for defeats the purpose.

Sure, it's a judgment call. If you think it is very important to mention
"window", then do so. But adding padding such as "this window of the frame"
is counterproductive. It confuses more that it helps (Why "this"? Is it
trying to tell me something about some other window too? Why "of the frame"?
Is there some window I should worry about that is not in the frame? Is there
some other frame that is involved here?)

If we don't pay attention to this, soon we will have text such as "This
window of the frame, which is just above the place where you just clicked
with your mouse just now." And perhaps we'll start explaining what a frame
is and the difference between Emacs windows and window-manager windows, to
avoid confusion by newbies.

> >> > Why would it need to say "For this window of the frame"? If it is
> >> > not clear enough without that context explanation, then there is
> >> > something wrong with the UI beyond just the tooltip text.
> >>
> >> The mode line is not the same as the window.  "This window of the
> >> frame" makes clear that we are not talking about the window
> >> system's definition of a window, but about something that is nested
> >> within frames.
> >
> > Really not necessary.
> >
> > "This window of the frame": "of the frame" is 100% useless, as is
> > "this".
> If one knows the Emacs terminology by heart.

See above - will you explain windows and frames in every tooltip that
involves either? Does what you wrote actually explain anything about windows
and frames? I think it only adds confusion.

> > If we stop making an effort to keep tooltips short, thinking that we
> > need to add padding such as this, then our tooltips will soon become
> > Victorian novels.
> The first line is shorter than the second one.  Further shortening it
> will actually worsen the visual appearance, so there is no point in
> omitting helpful content.

The content I spoke of is not helpful. It is 100% fluff. It adds only

> > A mode-line is tied to its window and buffer. Though a mode-line can
> > contain text that is unrelated to the window/buffer, most of its
> > text is usually related.
> Tooltips are not primarily for seasoned users.

And? Does your additional text actually help unseasoned users? I don't think
so. If the extra padding does anything at all, it adds confusion, IMO.

> >> By the way: this tooltip (however many lines it takes) should
> >> absolutely not get displayed when there is only one window in the
> >> frame: it will only confuse the user since all announced operations
> >> are noops and there is no difference between window and frame.
> >
> > We do agree about that.
> Well, at least some common point.  Apart from the first letter of our
> name, I doubt we will find many more.  I guess I have said most of
> what I have to say about this matter.  If you do what is needed to
> feel the same, we can just let the others possibly chime in and let
> Richard sort out the mess with a decision.
> Or something.

OK. We've each made our point.

reply via email to

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