> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
>> I think I am even less willing to have 'bold' in the toolbar than
>> in the menus... Sorry.
>>
Michael> It is because "bold" is bad and you want to make it as
Michael> difficult as possible to us
John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Well, it can be automatic of course. Still, there are times when
it is useful *not* to save. The cat walked across my keyboard,
but it doesn't matter for I wasn't going to save this.
Well, we could remove "sav
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 04:14:46PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Well, it can be automatic of course. Still, there are times when
> it is useful *not* to save. The cat walked across my keyboard,
> but it doesn't matter for I wasn't going to save this.
> Well, we could remove "save" and keep "rev
> "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> The computer could handle transparently the save operation. On
>> PalmOS apps, for example, there is no such thing as a save
>> operation in general.
>>
Helge> And there is true multitasking too, so the user can start
Helge> uploading
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
"Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Helge> Perhaps "store" is a better word than "save", but I can't see
Helge> how you can claim that the operation itself isn't useful. How
Helge> else would you want to preserve a document for the futur
John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
Perhaps "store" is a better word than "save", but I can't
see how you can claim that the operation itself isn't useful.
How else would you want to preserve a document for the future?
Why on earth would th
> "Helge" == Helge Hafting <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Helge> Perhaps "store" is a better word than "save", but I can't see
Helge> how you can claim that the operation itself isn't useful. How
Helge> else would you want to preserve a document for the future? Call
Helge> it by a better name if
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 02:13:43PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Perhaps "store" is a better word than "save", but I can't
> see how you can claim that the operation itself isn't useful.
> How else would you want to preserve a document for the future?
Why on earth would the computer not do this f
John Levon wrote:
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:12:22PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
But still - they do understand that this letter to mom have this name,
that report have that name, and so on. This is what you need to use
"save".
No, Helge, naming a document is entirely different to w
On Thu, Sep 14, 2006 at 01:12:22PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> But still - they do understand that this letter to mom have this name,
> that report have that name, and so on. This is what you need to use
> "save".
No, Helge, naming a document is entirely different to what File->Save
presents.
John Levon wrote:
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 03:37:30PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a
low level.
Precisely the prob
Michael Gerz wrote:
Helge Hafting schrieb:
Cut and paste is surely better done with:
* keyboard only, or -
* mouse only - mark the text then drag the selection off somewhere.
But it must be in the menus too, because there is no standard
cut & paste keys on keyboards. Apps do this differently.
T
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
I think I am even less willing to have 'bold' in the toolbar than in
the menus... Sorry.
It is because "bold" is bad and you want to make it as difficult as
possible to use it? In that case, I would like to propose to banish all
keybord short-cuts for "bold" as
On Wed, Sep 13, 2006 at 03:37:30PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> >On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> >
> >
> >>It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a
> >>low level.
> >>
> >
> >Precisely the problem.
> >
> Wel
Helge Hafting schrieb:
Cut and paste is surely better done with:
* keyboard only, or -
* mouse only - mark the text then drag the selection off somewhere.
But it must be in the menus too, because there is no standard
cut & paste keys on keyboards. Apps do this differently.
There is also no stand
Lars Gullik Bjønnes schrieb:
I know that we had some discussions about this, I belive one of the
arguments was: "Character Styles are misleading, it is not style on
single chars but on words and pieces of text."
But I can also apply the style to a single character.
Michael
John Levon wrote:
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a
low level.
Precisely the problem.
Well, the "keep it simple" principle applies - users
actually understand the filesystem, so ther
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> John Levon schrieb:
>> Unfortunately the menus are the essence of compromise...
>>
Michael> Than let's find a solution that everybody can agree upon. If
Michael> JMarc is willing to fix #2491 (easy), I will no longer insist
Mich
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 10:11:31PM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> It isn't a model - it is how this computer stuff actually happen on a
> low level.
Precisely the problem.
> Saving is *often* unnecessary because the app should do that
> when you close it anyway. But sometimes I want to save some
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:50:12PM +0100, John Levon wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
>
> > Please tell - what is the problem with File->Save? Logically,
> > saving is an operation on a file. What do you want instead,
> > document->save? Or something comple
On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 11:32:44AM +0200, Helge Hafting wrote:
> Please tell - what is the problem with File->Save? Logically,
> saving is an operation on a file. What do you want instead,
> document->save? Or something completely different?
I can only point you to "About Face", a pretty excell
John Levon wrote:
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:25:24PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
Sorry but I have to disagree strongly. Why on earth do we have "cut" &
"paste" in the "edit" menu? Because it is so efficient to use the menu?
Definitely not! Because every word processor has it? Ugh, didn't Joh
On Tuesday 12 September 2006 08:50, Martin Vermeer wrote:
> Hmmm, the fact that the inset name is character style doesn't
> necessarily mean that the menu item has to be. Just find the name that
> fits best.
+1
> - Martin
--
José Abílio
On Mon, 2006-09-11 at 22:28 +0200, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
> John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> | On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> |
> | > BTW: I changed "Text Style" into "Character Style", because Martin calls
> | > them character styles. The terms sho
John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
|
| > BTW: I changed "Text Style" into "Character Style", because Martin calls
| > them character styles. The terms shows up in the layout files and it should
|
| This is perhaps unfortunate.
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:55:36PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> BTW: I changed "Text Style" into "Character Style", because Martin calls
> them character styles. The terms shows up in the layout files and it should
This is perhaps unfortunate. What do other people think?
regards
john
John Levon schrieb:
Unfortunately the menus are the essence of compromise...
Than let's find a solution that everybody can agree upon. If JMarc is willing to fix #2491 (easy), I will no longer insist on "noun", "bold", and "emph" being listed in the menu.
Regarding, "uppercase" there are pr
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 09:25:24PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Sorry but I have to disagree strongly. Why on earth do we have "cut" &
> "paste" in the "edit" menu? Because it is so efficient to use the menu?
> Definitely not! Because every word processor has it? Ugh, didn't John
> teach us for
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
John> It's certainly grammatical in English too, but the question is
John> if it's not there, then where? Certainly "not on the menus" is a
John> reasonable solution.
I think the only one that makes sense is the kbd version, since the
idea is to do faster something
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 01:51:36PM +0200, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> I think the only one that makes sense is the kbd version, since the
> idea is to do faster something that could be done by hand.
Yes, that's fine by me.
regards
john
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
> OpenOffice has them in Format>Change case (with 2 items in the
> submenu, which looks silly).
>
> Word 97 has a Format>Change case dialog (with no less than 5
> possibilities).
>
> Others?
abiword: Format>Change case dialog (with 5 possibilities)
kword: Tools>Change c
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> It's certainly grammatical in English too, but the question is
John> if it's not there, then where? Certainly "not on the menus" is a
John> reasonable solution.
OpenOffice has them in Format>Change case (with 2 items in the
submenu, whi
On Mon, Sep 11, 2006 at 12:34:32PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> John Levon wrote:
> > it's at least
> > arguable that capitalisation is a reasonable "Text Style" operation.
>
> In English perhaps. At least in German, it's first and foremost a
> morphosyntactical (i.e. grammatical) marke
John Levon wrote:
> it's at least
> arguable that capitalisation is a reasonable "Text Style" operation.
In English perhaps. At least in German, it's first and foremost a
morphosyntactical (i.e. grammatical) marker, and I wouldn't subsume that
to "Text Style" (unless you are willing to subsume
On Sat, Sep 09, 2006 at 03:36:10PM +0200, Juergen Spitzmueller wrote:
> Really? I didn't notice that. Anyway, if you think that emphasize and noun
> should be in the menus additionally to the toolbars and the dialog (I find it
> superfluous), it is probably the best to put them in a char style s
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> what do you think about the patch below? The idea is to have a submenu
> for character styles that combines layout-specific char styles,
> bold/emphasize/noun style, and the font dialog. The layout-specific char
> styles have been
> "Lars" == Lars Gullik Bjønnes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| They should be removed from the menus. These are specialized helper
| lfuns, that do nothing that cannot be done by hand. Not my
| definition of "needed in a menu".
Lars> As a short-cut othoh. There is is really useful.
Sure. But
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| > "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
|
| Juergen> Also, I think that word-capitalize etc. should not
| Juergen> be in the same submenu, this is clearly no markup feature
| Juergen> (except from full caps, which is a
> "Juergen" == Juergen Spitzmueller <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Juergen> Also, I think that word-capitalize etc. should not
Juergen> be in the same submenu, this is clearly no markup feature
Juergen> (except from full caps, which is a special case).
They should be removed from the menus. The
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Lars Gullik Bjønnes schrieb:
>> We want to encourage emphasize, but discourage bold... (hide bold
>> in a hard to get place.)
>>
>> logical styles: good explict styles: bad
>>
Michael> In other words: You want me to show "Empha
Michael Gerz wrote:
> I am fully aware of this issue. However, are you willing to accept my
> proposal as an interim solution? Users do want to emphasize text or make
> it bold. We already have bug reports complaining that this feature is
> missing in 1.4.X.
Really? I didn't notice that. Anyway, i
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Anyway, can I commit my latest patch (without "Bold" if that speeds up
| things)???
I really do not want to be part of the menu layout discussions. Only
on the more highlevel questions. (in this regard.)
--
Lgb
Lars Gullik Bjønnes schrieb:
We want to encourage emphasize, but discourage bold...
(hide bold in a hard to get place.)
logical styles: good
explict styles: bad
In other words: You want me to show "Emphasize" and "Noun" in the char
style menu but ignore "bold"? Then have a look at this
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| Juergen Spitzmueller schrieb:
| > I think it is a bit problematic to mix semantic markup (character
| > styles, emphasize, noun) with logical markup (bold, uppercase). I
| > know it never has been separated properly, but I think this is wehre
| > we shoul
Juergen Spitzmueller schrieb:
I think it is a bit problematic to mix semantic markup (character styles,
emphasize, noun) with logical markup (bold, uppercase). I know it never has
been separated properly, but I think this is wehre we should aim at.
I am fully aware of this issue. However, are yo
Michael Gerz wrote:
> Any comments?
I think it is a bit problematic to mix semantic markup (character styles,
emphasize, noun) with logical markup (bold, uppercase). I know it never has
been separated properly, but I think this is wehre we should aim at.
Jürgen
Martin Vermeer schrieb:
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
John, JMarc,
what do you think about the patch below? The idea is to have a submenu
for character styles that combines layout-specific char styles,
bold/emphasize/noun style, and the font dialog. The layo
On Thu, Sep 07, 2006 at 09:07:17PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> John Levon schrieb:
> >What would be REALLY cool is some actual UI testing in a proper lab
> >infrastructure. But slightly cool would be something that collected
> >real-life data on menu use, and allowed us to collect it (modulo priv
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:29:58PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> John, JMarc,
>
> what do you think about the patch below? The idea is to have a submenu
> for character styles that combines layout-specific char styles,
> bold/emphasize/noun style, and the font dialog. The layout-specific char
>
John Levon schrieb:
What would be REALLY cool is some actual UI testing in a proper lab
infrastructure. But slightly cool would be something that collected
real-life data on menu use, and allowed us to collect it (modulo privacy
concerns etc.)
Asking a self-selecting population is notoriously tr
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Nevertheless, at some point in time, we should ask the LyX
Michael> users (not the developers) what they would like to see as the
Michael> default. Personally, I think that the traditional
Michael> Windows/Word/OOo user prefers t
On Wed, Sep 06, 2006 at 11:17:51PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Nevertheless, at some point in time, we should ask the LyX users (not
> the developers) what they would like to see as the default. Personally,
> I think that the traditional Windows/Word/OOo user prefers the classic
> look & feel
John, JMarc,
what do you think about the patch below? The idea is to have a submenu
for character styles that combines layout-specific char styles,
bold/emphasize/noun style, and the font dialog. The layout-specific char
styles have been moved from menu "Insert". Although the styles are
actua
Hi John,
I reconsidered things. I agree with you that it doesn't make sense to
change the default menu into something that is more like classic.ui (but
not completely). The result is something that satisfies neither you nor me.
Nevertheless, at some point in time, we should ask the LyX users
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
Michael> This patch removes the "Read-Only" entry from the menu and
Michael> labels some menus consistently (inside the ui file!).
If we are renaming the menus themselves, wouldn't it be better to
*remove* the name of the enclosing menu everywhere, like
document_upd
> "Michael" == Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Michael> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
>> There is a reason for example why 'Toggle read only' was not there.
>> This is a very specialized lfun which was added at someone's
>> request; for the casual user, it will cause more puzzlement t
On Tue, Sep 05, 2006 at 10:33:34PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
> >There is a reason for example why 'Toggle read only' was not there.
> >This is a very specialized lfun which was added at someone's request;
> >for the casual user, it will cause more puzzlement than a
Jean-Marc Lasgouttes schrieb:
There is a reason for example why 'Toggle read only' was not there.
This is a very specialized lfun which was added at someone's request;
for the casual user, it will cause more puzzlement than anything.
This patch removes the "Read-Only" entry from the menu and l
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 10:02:26PM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> John Levon schrieb:
> >The exact same comments I've had every single time you've tried to bring
> >this up. And not once have you actually gone through the design
> >explanations I gave and argued your case. It's just "they have it, s
John Levon schrieb:
The exact same comments I've had every single time you've tried to bring
this up. And not once have you actually gone through the design
explanations I gave and argued your case. It's just "they have it, so
should we". But I've said this before, and you've ignored it before.
> "John" == John Levon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
John> On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:30:28AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I think we should re-introduce the "Layout" menu which was dropped
>> in the 1.4.X series. The main reason is that every word processor
>> (even UltraEdit!)
Michael Gerz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> Hello,
>
> I think we should re-introduce the "Layout" menu which was dropped in
> the 1.4.X series. The main reason is that every word processor (even
> UltraEdit!) has such a menu. The additional menu item also reduces the
> size of the "Edit" m
On Mon, Sep 04, 2006 at 12:30:28AM +0200, Michael Gerz wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I think we should re-introduce the "Layout" menu which was dropped in
> the 1.4.X series. The main reason is that every word processor (even
> UltraEdit!) has such a menu. The additional menu item also reduces the
> si
Hello,
I think we should re-introduce the "Layout" menu which was dropped in
the 1.4.X series. The main reason is that every word processor (even
UltraEdit!) has such a menu. The additional menu item also reduces the
size of the "Edit" menu.
Any comments?
Michael
# -*- text -*-
# file st
64 matches
Mail list logo
