On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:19:56AM +0000, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 12:11:51AM -0000, Simon Porter wrote: > > Well if there are indeed optional then you could at least have it set as > > default then. If you are going to have a simplified version of something > > then it makes sense to present that to the user first rather than > > freaking them out with options they know nothing about. > I'm sorry, I find it impossible to produce a civil response to this.
You seem to be having trouble producing a civil response to anything today, so this doesn't surprise me. > But, we should make the extra panes optional, not for simplicity's own > sake but for the simple reason that they don't fit on many people's > screens. Which I have pointed out REPEATEDLY. No, we should make them optional for exactly the reason Simon pointed out - which is that there is no point in presenting the user with information they won't understand. Rather, such information should be presented only when requested by the user (using a "Show details..." button). Ian. -- Ian Clarke ian@[freenetproject.org|locut.us|cematics.com] Latest Project http://cematics.com/kanzi Personal Homepage http://locut.us/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021219/ddfbcb3f/attachment.pgp>
