On Wed, Dec 03, 2003 at 03:13:33PM +0100, Andre Poenitz wrote:
> > \normal{\foo{xxx\normal{nnn}xxx}}
> >
> > and
> >
> > \normal{\foo{xxx}nnn\foo{xxx}}
>
> Let \foo be \small and you will see a difference.
How ?
> > But, nonetheless, a non-inset-based UI can still handle both via a
> > "Reset" or "Default" option.
>
> And all-boxes has 'split boxes' and 'insert new box'. Two options as
> well.
At the risk of invoking my signature, UI design is not a linear process.
You cannot simply count operations and decide on that basis which is
more suitable.
> > Yes. But currently we have insets visible in the UI. What we should have
> > is simple: select some text, choose an LCS to apply to it (perhaps
> > "Reset") and there you are, you're done. Edit->Text_Style->Emphasis
> > on the selection.
> >
> > How would this work with the current inset approach ?
>
> Cut, create new \emph inset, go there, paste. Pretty much what C-b does
> for 'mathbf in mathed.
You really think this is acceptable ? It is *way* more complex than the
direct manipulation method of "select object, apply change". Such an
approach may or may not make sense for mathed, but math IS NOT LIKE
normal text.
> I understand that. However, if UI is close to implementation it is more
> likely to be consistent as some artificially attached MS Word like UI.
You're picking apart a straw man. Our current physical style interface
does not have many problems, and it definitely has less than what we
have with the insets right now. Amongst other things :
o you go to the Insert menu to apply a style. Huh ? I am editing not
inserting.
o I can't select part of an inset and part outside of an inset and apply
a change
o I have to move the cursor multiple times to get to the next character
sometimes
o If I want to apply a style to the end of a par and the start of the
next, I either need two insets, or I get some weird on-screen formatting
o I can arbitrarily nest the same style inside the same style. This does
not make sense for LCS.
All this stuff is trivially derivable by trying current CVS and
comparing with the Edit->Text Style dialog for Noun.
> Understanding the all-boxes concept is not too hard
So what ? It's not a question of absolute values, but of relative ones.
Boxes are harder, less intuitive, and significantly more awkward to use.
> LyX documentation brags with 'structure based document editor' (or
Structure does not imply insets.
You're trying to argue your corner because it's easier to implement.
This is not how things should be designed. We should be choosing an
ideal UI and then working towards an implementation, and only modifying
it if it turns out to be *fiendishly* hard to do. It's clearly *not*
fiendishly hard to do, since we already have very similar UI implemented
and working fairly well, namely the physical styles stuff.
regards,
john
p.s. I don't remember you arguing hard against the draft I sent to the
list some time ago, which used the selection-range model.
--
Khendon's Law:
If the same point is made twice by the same person, the thread is over.
