On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote: > On Sunday 07 November 2010 19:12:46 Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote: > > > On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:31:44 Ingo Klöcker wrote: > > > > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote: > > > > > Aurélien Gâteau wrote: > > > > > > I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions > > > > > > to toggle UI items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or > > > > > > statusbar should be labeled "Show/hide Foo" depending on > > > > > > the visibility of Foo rather than implemented as a > > > > > > checkable "[ ] Show Foo" item. > > > > > > > > > > Having followed the discussion and how you fought to get this > > > > > change in, I'm a bit saddened that it turned out to not work > > > > > so well in practice. > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can tackle the underlying issue in another way. If I > > > > > understood the problem correctly, it basically boils down to > > > > > > > > > > [X] Show Foo > > > > > > > > > > textually implying the opposite of the action that the user > > > > > is going to trigger if (s)he clicks it. If we keep the > > > > > checkboxes, maybe we are able to change the text, so that it > > > > > is obvious that it describes the current state rather than > > > > > an action by changing the verb into an adjective: > > > > > > > > > > [X] Foo shown > > > > > [X] Foo visible > > > > > [X] Foo enabled > > > > > > > > > > Just an idea... > > > > > > > > IMHO that does not really fix the problem. I think the real > > > > problem is that we think that an additional qualifier like > > > > "Show" or "shown" is necessary. As if our users would not > > > > understand what the state of the checkbox preceding the menu > > > > entry signifies. > > > > > > > > I just had a look at Firefox (maybe others can check > > > > applications from other "vendors" like Apple, Microsoft, etc.) > > > > > > > > Firefox has the options to show/hide certain UI components in > > > > the View menu (while we have them in the Settings menu). In > > > > this menu Firefox simply lists the UI components names without > > > > any verbs, adjectives, etc., i.e. > > > > > > > > View > > > > > > > > Toolbars > > > > > > > > [x] Navigation Toolbar > > > > [x] Bookmarks Toolbar > > > > > > > > [x] Status Bar > > > > > > > > Sidebar > > > > > > > > [ ] Bookmarks > > > > [ ] History > > > > > > > > Does it really matter that Firefox has those options in the > > > > View menu while we have them in the Settings menu? I don't > > > > think so. > > > > > > > > So, why don't we simply get rid of "Show" (and the "Shown" in > > > > Settings- > > > > > > > > >Toolbars Shown). IMHO those qualifiers are totally superfluous > > > > >in > > > > > > > > combination with checkboxes. Our convention to add the "Show" > > > > does stem from a time where we could (and did) hide the > > > > checkboxes of checkable menu entries. Apparently, with Qt 4 > > > > the checkboxes of checkable menu entries cannot be hidden. > > > > Since we are already at Qt 4.7 it seems very unlikely that > > > > QtDF will ever change this. So why insist on a convention that > > > > does not make any sense anymore? > > > > > > I agree about removing "Show" etc. But if this is done, the menu > > > items should be moved to the View menu. In the Firefox example > > > you give, the menu name (View) puts the meaning of the menu > > > items in context and acts as the verb, giving the necessary hint > > > to the user that the checkboxes determine the view state of the > > > respective items. Removing the verb and leaving them in the > > > Settings menu would IMO make their meaning a bit unclear. > > > > Do you really think this would be a bit unclear? What else would an > > unchecked UI element in any menu mean? > > > > Quite frankly, I cannot image the number of users which grasp "[ ] > > Show Toolbar" but not "[ ] Toolbar" to be significant. Surely, > > there are a lot of not that computer literate people (like my > > parents) who understand neither one nor the other. But people who > > understand the former, but not the latter? I claim that such > > people do not exist. Prove me wrong! ;-) > > I can't prove you wrong. :-( What I'm saying is that putting the > items in the View menu would make it a bit clearer because the menu > items would be unambiguously related to viewing, so there would be > less opportunity to misunderstand them. I quite agree with you that > there are people who probably wouldn't understand either, but that > shouldn't stop us trying to make things as clear as possible for > those who might be capable of understanding.
One problem with the View menu is that it's not a standard menu while the Settings menu is a standard menu. For example, KAddressBook 4.4 does not have a View menu. Other than that I'm not totally opposed to putting those options into a View menu. Regards, Ingo
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
