From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:09:06 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes:
> Lots of people have.
Sorry but I haven't seen a detailed and complete proposal yet. If
you can point me to one, please do.
Here's one: add a text entry box at the bottom of the screen, and use
a different key (say, shift-tab) for completion.
Attach this label to the entry box:
Filename: (to complete, type shift-tab)
>> I certainly wouldn't want to miss the current key-navigation
>> behaviour. But perhaps you can offer a viable alternative?
> What is the current key navigation behaviour? cursor keys? I
> don't really need cursor keys when I do tab completion, and when
> I need them, I could easily use my mouse to click.
Oh well. I had the impression all along this discussion. You
basically have no clue on how the new dialog works. That doesn't
shed a good light on the new dialog but it also shows that you are
rather ignorant. I think I asked you and everyone else to actually
try to work with the dialog. I guess I will have to sit down and
write a manual since you obviously haven't understood how it works.
I could just as easily say that you have no clue how Marc or I work --
please keep the personal attacks out of it. You did ask Marc to try
to work with the new dialog, he complied, and found it didn't help
> Or, put difefretly: in what ways would a tetx entry with
> completion conflict with being able to use the file dialogs other
> features with the mouse (and then: with the keyboard).
I have already explained that in all details. See my other mail in
this thread in case you missed earlier explanations.
As best as I can tell, the only substantive issue is the fact that the
tab key, if used for completion, would conflict with the tab key, as
used to jump around the other widgets. I propose using a different
key sequence -- shift-tab -- for completion.
> If a number of users complain about usability issues, askign them to make
> scientific studies before their complaints can be taken seriously is just
> plain idiotic.
> What counts is reality, and the current file dialogs, wether they worked
> in studies or not, fail this for quite a number of people.
Marc, it is you who's being idiotic here. You state that there are
a number of people. What number? How large is that number compared
to the number of happy users? We can hardly decide anything unless
we know the answer to these questions.
I've seen quite a number of people -- Marc, Alastair Robinson, Bill
Kendrick, Jernej Simoncic, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris, Michael
Thaler, and myself -- complain more or less vociferously about this,
for what appears to be more or less the same reason. Alan Horkan
appears to have at least some complaints about it, Dennis Bjorklund
appears to be defending it mildly, and you're defending it strongly.
So by my count, we have
Oppose/strongly oppose 7
Mildly oppose 1
Mildly support 1
Strongly support 1
Is this proof? No. Perhaps the majority of GIMP/GTK users who are
not on the list strongly prefer the new dialog. However, my
experience on the net suggests that if there were other people on the
list who strongly support the new dialog that at least a few of them
would have popped up by now. What's more, the complaints are all very
specific, and are focused on exactly the same issue -- the lack of a
text entry box for a filename. Nobody here is complaining about
anything else. Isn't that at least enough reason to take a closer
look at the issue?
Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2
Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net
"Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works."
Gimp-developer mailing list