On Thu, 26 Jul 2001, Jamin Collins wrote:
> 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?
Look at the height and width of a menu titlebar. Now look at the same
attributes for a window. Pretty different in most cases. That a menu is
on the screen is an indication that it is torn, no reason to further state
it. I would be more interested in a cue on the parent menu. As I have
stated, we dont need another means for closing menus. Also, this would
require changing the style specification, breaking compatibility.
> > 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.
No. That was someone else. Read what I said again.
> > 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.
Why do we need a visual indication that a menu is torn? For a submenu to
be visible, it must be torn. A more logical thing would be to put some
indication on the parent menu that the submenu was torn. A menu is not a
normal window, same at the toolbar, the slit, etc, though a menu is a
window before and after it is torn. A close button is superfluous.
(Note: please stop sending your replies to both me and the list, I don't
need to get them twice)
--
Gregory J. Barlow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
336.558.7231 http://barlow.ncssm.net
