From: Angel H. <ang...@ua...> - 2006-11-29 19:58:07
|
(I tried to send this message before, but it seems it got lost) Bob, thanks for recent redesigning of the pop-menu. That was much needed. I have some comments: 1.- "Select > Element" Can we have the element names translatable? Some of them are already translated in the app top menu. Another choice would be to use just the chemical symbol. 2.- "Style" : I would rather have this order: -------- "Scheme >>" "Structures >>" -------- "Atoms >>" "Labels >>" "Bonds >>" "Hbonds >>" "SSbonds >>" ----------- "Perspective" "Axes" "Axes >>" "Boundbox" "Boundbox >>" "UnitCell" "UnitCell >>" "Stereo >>" ------------ Also, what is the interest of having a Boundbox checkbox plus a Boundbox submenu? I know what they do, but they might be combined in a single submenu, making a shorter menu. Same for the others. 3.- There is "Style > Structure > CartoonRockets", but no "Color" for them. Great work! |
From: Bob H. <ha...@st...> - 2006-11-29 20:39:25
|
Angel Herraez wrote: >(I tried to send this message before, but it seems it got lost) > >Bob, thanks for recent redesigning of the pop-menu. That was much >needed. >I have some comments: > >1.- "Select > Element" Can we have the element names translatable? >Some of them are already translated in the app top menu. Another choice >would be to use just the chemical symbol. > > I think not. The key is that these are the names you would "select". But we could have BOTH there, perhaps. H (hydrogen) Ag (silver) etc. >2.- "Style" : I would rather have this order: > -------- > "Scheme >>" > "Structures >>" > -------- > "Atoms >>" > "Labels >>" > "Bonds >>" > "Hbonds >>" > "SSbonds >>" > ----------- > "Perspective" > "Axes" > "Axes >>" > "Boundbox" > "Boundbox >>" > "UnitCell" > "UnitCell >>" > "Stereo >>" > ------------ >Also, what is the interest of having a Boundbox checkbox plus a Boundbox >submenu? I know what they do, but they might be combined in a single >submenu, making a shorter menu. Same for the others. > > > I definitely see your point there. This is a messy menu. How about: []"Perspective Depth" "Stereographic >>" -------- "Scheme >>" -------- "Atoms >>" "Labels >>" "Bonds >>" "Hbonds >>" "SSbonds >>" "Structures >>" ----------- "Axes >>" [contains checkbox] "Boundbox >>" [contains checkbox] "UnitCell >>" [contains checkbox] My rationale: 1) checkboxes appear only at the top of all submenus 2) perspective/stereo is a special consideration and definitely needs a checkbox 3) structures seem to naturally follow atoms and bonds as "bigger" considerations >3.- There is "Style > Structure > CartoonRockets", but no "Color" for them. > > > > Cartoon rockets are just a variant of "cartoons" so they are colored with the "color cartoon" command. I could add it, but it would be the exact same command as for "cartoons". Seems unnecessary to me. All comments debatable. Bob |
From: Angel H. <ang...@ua...> - 2006-11-29 21:18:42
|
Thanks, Bob I will wait for others to express their opinion, but I want to clarify now my point of view on point nr.2: > >2.- "Style" : I would rather have this order: > 3) structures seem to naturally follow atoms and bonds as "bigger" > considerations To me, both Scheme and Structures are quick options affecting global rendering, while Atoms, Bonds, etc are more detailed, specific, need a combination of them. That's why I like the first 2 together at the top. Plus, a new Scheme > None would be useful (e.g. to show structures only; right now, you have to deactivate Atoms, then Bonds). We already have Structures > None, which is good. Regarding []"Perspective Depth" and "Stereographic >>", I prefer having them at the bottom since they are (to me at least, and likely to novice users) less-frequently used options. > >3.- There is "Style > Structure > CartoonRockets", but no "Color" for them. > > > Cartoon rockets are just a variant of "cartoons" so they are colored > with the "color cartoon" command. OK. Didn't realize that |