From: Bernard Jungen <bjung@ti...> - 2001-11-20 05:23:39
On Wed, Nov 14, 2001 at 11:57:33AM +0000, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> Collection.c is a collection of arbitary objects. There should be no code
> specific to displaying files in here!
Right. But in practice collection is only used for files. Given the filer is
only about files I wonder what other things we'll need a collection for.
> > + better menu item shading (ie shaded items are unselectable) done by
> > shading the entry itself, not its child.
> This means that you can't click on a shaded menu item, and therefore can't
> find out *why* it's shaded. Also, it prevents setting short-cuts on shaded
> items. Finally, it encourages not checking that the function was called
> with the correct state (because it should be shaded), but it can still be
> called from a keyboard short-cut.
Agreed. But here's another point of view:
- how non-standard or inconsistent is that behaviour? For users 'shaded'
surely means 'not selectable' or 'impossible to do' so why still give them
the choice? What you see should exactly match what you can do. Menu users
don't know what they're doing and are urged to RTFM :-)
- why would a user set a short-cut for an item she hasn't already tried or
doesn't know what it is for or why it is not possible to do?
- safe programming practices have little if nothing to do with user interface
- an action done in a menu is an obvious thing; an action done through the
keyboard is not: for short-cuts the function should always be called so
that there's always feedback.
Any other opinion anyone?
> > + current choice of icon size and sort type is now highlighted in the
> > menu. Not sure whether highlighting is the right thing to do, but
> > it looks better than a column of mostly empty check boxes.
> I'd go for the check boxes and let the theme make it look good. Haven't
> tried it, though.
Whatever the theme, an empty checkbox will always be an empty checkbox!
So, have you tried, what does it look like?
We could try changing menu item types (normal when option off, check box when on)
on the fly but this would be a bit messy...
Some things in GTK I find useless/weird, eg no support for the above-mentioned
feature, but support for useless 'hidden' checkboxes (invisible unless it's the
current entry under the mouse pointer!), no support to easily bring a window
to the front.
Anyway, ROX (functionality as well as source code) is still very good stuff.
Not perfect though, I'm sure the code still needs some review/improvement. So
people, whenever your eyes spot some improvement, as little as it is, please do
it, that will help future developments.
Thanks for listening,
Bernard Jungen - Member of BASS - INTP - Triple Evokateur
Email: bjung@... - WWW: http://home.tiscali.be/~bjungen/
We must know how to say 'Thank you'. If we were in the habit of taking stock
of all the good things we have each day, we would realise how rich we were.