|
From: Vic L. <ll...@16...> - 2010-08-06 09:09:54
|
Hi Fabian, Yes you do make some point that these menus can be simplify in some way. However I will not make such big UI change in a stable release, so let's figure this out in 0.9 :) When I start planning 0.9 I will discuss you again on how to organize the menu. I will also make some announcement to see how other users think. But since 0.9 will not be out very soon (I already have a list of feature planning for it), Squeeze will most likely to stay with 0.8 and the current UI. I think Squeeze development freeze should happen soon. Vic On Fri, 2010-08-06 at 09:11 +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote: > Am 06.08.2010 03:29, schrieb Vic Lee: > > Yes, but it actually saves two clicks :) first click to drop down and > > second click to select the protocol. > > But it adds an entire submenu for this which I find absolutely > unnecessary. Please take nautilus-connect-server as an example, it > only presents a drop down menu (with "Public FTP" preselected) and is > still intuitive. > > > "Action" menu items do not write any profiles, while "Save" menu items > > do. Although externally you see many different menus opening similar > > windows, internally they are actually the same thing: only one object to > > deal with all the New/Edit/Quick Connect/etc. > > Yes, that's my point. You reach nearly the exact same window via two > different ways, which is unintuitive. Furthermore, the Quick connect > window is simply missing functionality (i.e. give it a name and save > the profile) that could as well be bypassed by clicking the Cancel > button in the Edit->New windows if it is undesired. > > > Yes you do make a point that "Quick Connect" and "New" could somehow be > > possibly merged, however I am concerning that some other users might > > react differently. Quick connect was designed there originally because > > "tsclient" also has Quick connect for many years, I was following it > > since the first release, and it should be clear and convenient for some > > users; just my opinion. > > Alright, but in my opinion it is a mistake to follow design errors of > other applications. Even though tsclient is highly established as a > connector to Windows desktops, I think cleaning up the surface is > desirable, even if it breaks with tsclients conventions. > > - Fabian |