On Mon, Jun 24, 2002 at 01:15:07PM +1000, Allan Rae wrote:
> I think you are being pedantic and you think I don't understand...
>
> > b) because you state it is unimportant (see above)
>
> it is not worth losing sleep over, getting a migraine or an ulcer from
> or suffering a heart-attack or anurism for.
But it is worth fixing.
> Ask yourself: Is someone going to be completely confused or surprised
> or injured if a dialog pops up when no ellipsis is present in the menu
> entry?
This comment is exactly why I think you don't understand. The obvious
answer to your question is no - but that is not the point. I can only
persist (once again) in asking you to read and understand the purpose of
consistency as described in detail in several UI design websites and
books.
> I think not. I did however suggest that the ellipsis should be
> removed from the menu since the default setting doesn't pop up a
> dialog and as such that case *is* more misleading -- because the
> ellipsis built up an expectation that wasn't satisfied leading to
> confusion. Does this demonstrate an understanding of the basic
> concepts?
Being correct on this issue doesn't mean you understand my other points.
Yes, the ellipsis should be removed no matter what.
> I gave an example usage which you dismissed out of hand.
I don't think I did do that. I cast doubt on how common that usage is,
as well as providing *three* ways to get exactly the same effect
/without/ adversely affecting usability elsewhere.
> Obviously
> our two editing experiences are very different. Unfortunately you are
> not willing to accept my usage experience as a valid one.
If this was true, I would not have shown you the several ways you can do
this in the absence of this preference. Please don't put words into my
mouth.
You don't seem to be reading my e-mails at all. Please search back for
the word "triage" again.
By your logic, if we can find /one/ user who wants a prefs option, we
should it, even when there are just as good work arounds, and the huge
majority of users will never use it. Is this a correct summation of your
stance ?
> Not equal? Not relevant? For you perhaps. We have a feature that
> may cause a UI problem because an ellipsis may or may not be present
> in the menu besed on what a check-box is set to.
This was not the primary reason I want it removed.
> Your solution is remove the option and one of the features. Don't you
> see how silly this solution is?
The feature is already there in two ways, and my patch adds another.
> I tried to make you see how silly it was by suggesting we remove the
> search-and-replace feature as well.
But this is a logical fallacy, so I don't see what place it has in a
reasonable argument.
> anyway, your buffer-new patch seems almost okay except I can't
> navigate to a directory and then name the file I must instead type the
> whole path (if that path isn't the default one).
In which case the macro to do file-new, buffer-save to bring up the file
dialog is the best solution for your use case.
> > It means the lack of an ellipsis is a lie (never surprise the
> > user, and yes, it's still a surprise even if the user has to turn
> > it on explicitly). Nobody uses it, FSVO nobody.
>
> FSVO?
For some value of
> Have you bothered to ask on the users list yet who uses it and why?
I shall do. I must point out again that the existence of a user using it
proves nothing as to its sensibleness (apologies for the, erm, English).
> Or are you basing your "nobody" arguement on hypothesis?
Hypothesis, clearly.
> It'd still be nice to browse to set the path.
In which case you can use the method Michael K suggested (macro for
buffer-new then bring up the file dialog in one key combo)
regards
john
--
"If a thing is not diminished by being shared, it is not rightly owned if
it is only owned & not shared."
- St. Augustine
