On 6 Jan 2006 at 14:04, Brad Beyenhof wrote: > On 1/6/06, David W. Fenton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > And it seems to me that there oughtn't be any reason not to have > > such a menu choice in both locations. > > But if you follow that logic to its conclusion, you'll put discovery > paths to each dialog in multiple locations that might seem equally > useful. With every feature accessible from multiple places, there will > be so many choices that *nothing* will be easy to find!
I don't get it. Say there are two paths to a feature. You have two ways to get there. If there's only one you have only half the chance of arriving at the desired destination. I simply do not see why there is any problem with having more than one location where a particular action can be performed *if* it's appropriate in the context. Have you ever written software? Or designed a web page? Actually, that latter is a good one. Consider a CONTACT link on a web page. Most websites put it on every single page, and the link goes to a single page. Is that confusing? Of course not! What would be confusing was if you could only get to the CONTACT page by navigating to a single one of the many pages on a website. Some things belong in only one location, some work well in multiple contexts. There is nothing confusing or overcomplicated about having a feature accesible from more than one place in an application. Indeed, it's the case for any number of features in applications of many different types. It's the case in Finale for all kinds of things. -- David W. Fenton http://dfenton.com David Fenton Associates http://dfenton.com/DFA/ _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [email protected] http://lists.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
