On Wed, Feb 02, 2000 at 02:41:57PM +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>  Not really, you have the word "Preferences" just a few mm above it.

No, I haven't.

>  Also there was some inconsistency: The category "Monitor Information" was
>  a settings dialog anyway but it had no "Settings" in its name....

I have no problems with these!! Consistency is great, I am just against
removing non-redundant information.

>  "Mercedes Car", do you? You know that Mercedes produces cars as you
>  know that a pencil is a tool and in a toolbox every item is a tool.

The problem is that I know that every thing in the toolbox is a tool, but
I do not know that a givne dialog belongs to such a tool unless it is
marked as such.

The reason nobody calls it a Mercedes car is because you can see
it. Windows look the same, so you need other things to differentiate
between them.

>  There's no need to tell the user what she/he's seeing if it's
>  obviously.

I don't see it :(

>  Uhm, I guess like the idea of having window titles that tell you what
>  you should see, so why no "Save File Dialog" or "Preferences Dialog".
>  That no good UI design, in fact if you look at the comercial competitors
>  of GIMP you'll see that they don't do this either and surely this gives
>  a more professional impression...

I would rather like _more_ information displayed in the title than is
already. For example, if I open a Save As dialog window and answre a phone
call, it is not obvious which image you wnated to save (as this isn't
displayed anywhere).

> Like you can see, I'm not the only one who was disturbed by this... :))

Hmm... I wasn't the one who complained that some person with cvs access
applied a braindamged patch not so long ago ;->

      -----==-                                             |
      ----==-- _                                           |
      ---==---(_)__  __ ____  __       Marc Lehmann      +--
      --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /       [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
      -=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\       XX11-RIPE         --+
    The choice of a GNU generation                       |

Reply via email to