Gregory J. Barlow [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] wrote:
> If a close button was added, it would not work for all
> menus, which doesnt improve that situation. I still do
> not believe a sufficient case for close buttons has been
> made. It really doesnt improve anything.
It could be added for any and all menus with a title bar. However, I
believe it should only be added for those that have been torn (ie moved from
their original location).
> How is it a good choice? What does it really solve besides
> cluttering the interface?
Why is it a good choice? Well, BB already has the code for the close
button. Clutter? Next you'll be calling the close button on the window
frame "clutter". As for what it solves, it provides an indication (and
means) of closing the torn menu. I realize, and so do many others, that a
right click closes the window. Now, my question to you is how does a close
button clutter the interface?
> Read what I said again. I said windowmaker is nice, lots of
> its ideas are great, but not everything in it is.
Actually, from your statements, the indication was not to include it because
it was like windowmaker.
> As far as consistency, adding a close button hardly makes
> things more consistent.
Sure it does. It indicates (visually) that the menu is torn and can be
closed. It's consistency of window decoration, which is essentailly what a
torn menu becomes (a window). I'm not trying to say that an transition
happens within the code (no idea on this point) but in essence is see the
torn menu as a window. With regard to windows, those that can be closed
have a close button.
Jamin W. Collins
