................................. To leave Commie, hyper to http://commie.oy.com/commie_leaving.html .................................
>At least in Windows 2000, there is a shortcut for this: CTRL+click. (... >which is copied from Macintosh, where the sort-of equivalent is >"option+click". In Macintosh, the meaning is opposite, though: "close the >parent folder, when opening the new folder" ... and no idea, whether this >works in OS X or not.) Okay, thanks =) Seems to work. >>Actually I think the best place for the start menu would be to the pixel >>nearest >>to the mouse, which is the active pixel where the mouse is. Placing the start >>menu on the drop down menu you get on the right click would make things a lot >>easier. > >Hmmm... might be. Then again, you probably expect to find task-related >menus by right-clicking something. That's a convention already. > >Then again, the start menu could be further away in the contextual >dropdown menus. Task-related things first and general purpose shortcuts >next. If the contextual menus were circular, this could maybe work. Or to the upper left, when the usual context menu opens to the lower right? theres a lot of unused space there. Circular menu's would be cool too, though harder to design & customize. >The main problem with current Start menu is the clutter. Although Windows >2000 hides not-so-frequently used programs there by default, methinks it >makes the situation worse: The programs in the menu change their location >all the time. And the computer doesn't seem to understand that if I don't >use some program so often, it doesn't mean that I don't use it at all. The hiding could be a lot more intelligent, like counting the times the user has accessed the folders in the last 30 days or so and arranging them in a corresponding order, the busiest to the top, etc. Maybe programs that one does not use at all in a month don't even deserve to be shown. / Antti Kurittu | http://kohina.cjb.net
