On 2 Feb, Marc Lehmann wrote:
>> Not really, you have the word "Preferences" just a few mm above it.
> No, I haven't.
Sounds like you should send a bugreport to the authors of your
> I have no problems with these!! Consistency is great, I am just
> against removing non-redundant information.
I do have a problem with them because they look just silly.
>> "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.
It is marked and will stay that way. You'll always have the name of the
tool in the dialog...
> The reason nobody calls it a Mercedes car is because you can see
And I guess you can't see that a tool from the toolbox IS a tool?
In this case we should care about the sense of the tools instead
of specifying them to be tools....
> Windows look the same, so you need other things to differentiate
> between them.
Who cares about Windows? :>
Serious, no tool looks the same like any other in GIMP and I didn't
get you point with the Windows.
>> There's no need to tell the user what she/he's seeing if it's
> I don't see it :(
Hm, you don't wear glasses, do you?
> 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).
YES, you finally got it! So let's make it visible what image you are
about to save instead of underlining the point that this window is a
dialog (which everyone can see).... That is sensible UI desgin.
> Hmm... I wasn't the one who complained that some person with cvs
> access applied a braindamged patch not so long ago ;->
Hey, he didn't apply the whole patch... ;>