On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 05:53:06PM +0100, John Levon wrote: > > By pressing ^ or _ right behind the \sum sign? > > I see. You know it would be really nice if pressing the button when > there is no selection actually inserted a sum instead of just adding > another "environment". In fact, it would be sane ...
Which sum, which "environment"? > > > Valid, maybe. Useful ? > > > > Probably not very useful. However, I don't like adding code to remove the > > possibility to do something legal. > > Then the UI will always suck. I'm rapidly losing the energy though. > After all some vague aim towards "correctness" is more important than a > usable application, right ?? Not exactly. The problem is, without correctness you get "nice intuitive UI" in 90% of the cases and it is a mess to get an additional five percent and technical impossible to get the final five. For "advanced" features like math-extern this might be even closer to a 25-25-50 split and it is certainly nothing _I_ want to work with. So far I am opting for "correctness" which even allows a resonable clean implementation of the "advanced" stuff, and I am trying to smooth the really bad cases of counter-intuitive UI (while maintaining some kind of backwards compatiblility with 1.1.6). Not exactly trivial. Putting everything in an inset certainly is something people are not used to from other word processors but at least I got used to it. So if you want to help improve things, name annoyances one by one not "correctness should be less important than UI". > > So the question is, should the Qt code use hardcoded panels or not? Well, > > why not have the "soft" version? [I read the thread now, but I don't buy > > the "divergence of frontend argument" that came up] > > For now it can use the "hardcoded" one (ControlMath.C) with all its > stupid orderings and the like Note that _none_ of the dialog stuff is my doing. Andre' -- Those who desire to give up Freedom in order to gain Security, will not have, nor do they deserve, either one. (T. Jefferson)
