On Sat, 2010-08-07 at 14:46 +0100, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: > > > >... > >> What sense does it make to have a menu that's labelled "Calculator" > >> when doing a calculation, "Banshee" when you're playing music, and > >> "Empathy" when you're chatting with friends -- but "Firefox" when > >> you're writing e-mail, "Firefox" when you're buying books, "Firefox" > >> when you're reading the news, "Firefox" when you're playing Farmville, > >> "Firefox" when you're posting on a Web forum, and "Firefox" when > >> you're watching Hulu? Not much sense at all.
True , and so did mccann mention using generic names instead of app names: <http://blogs.gnome.org/mccann/2009/08/08/whatchamacallit/> Was this forgotten in the recent shell designs? Or just an oversight while doing mockups? As mentioned earlier the window titles are used and not just named "Firefox" always. > > > than looking for clues such as a super-tiny icon > > In Ubuntu 9.10 and later, the application icon does not appear in the > window title bar, partly for the same reason (it's not relevant to user > goals). > You seem to be contradicting yourself. ;) <https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=557469#c1> "A menu item should have an icon only if it represents a dynamic object such as an application, file, device, or user, or if it makes the items in that menu segment very much more recognizable" If an application icon in a menu makes it more recognizable , how is it not relevant to the user goals? There needs to be a consistent presentation within an OS , everywhere . If the application icon is not relevant,then there is no point in showing it in the menu either. > If you have a document open in Microsoft Word and a spreadsheet open in > Microsoft Excel, and you choose "Quit" from Excel's application menu on > the Mac (or "Exit" from its Office button on Windows), the spreadsheet > will close. But if you had the same document open in OpenOffice.org > Writer, and the same spreadsheet open in OpenOffice.org Calc, and you > chose "Quit" from OpenOffice.org's app menu in Gnome Shell, the > spreadsheet would close, and -- surprise! -- the document would close too. You are /not/ completely right here. We do have Close and Exit in OO.o . We can close one spreadsheet and have the other document open too. Btw, Why is this an argument against the app-menu? Shouldnt we just find a way to expose right option here? Now again , why isnt the app-menu ideal? because of a few bugs or improper names in the app-menu? What is it that makes it completely nonsensical to use such an app-menu? > These are examples of what I meant by giving historical context for a > design: > <http://design.canonical.com/2010/04/notification-area/> > <http://design.canonical.com/2010/05/menu-bar/> > Such documentations are indeed needed for shell and appmenu too. Anyone subscribed to the shell mailing list would realize the constant opposition/rants regarding the design decisions that have been made so far. -- Cheers, Vish _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
