Am Mittwoch, 18. April 2018 22:32:37 UTC+2 schrieb john lunzer:
That said, your argument appears to be based on something, the "conventions > and standards" of IDE GUIs, that if it exists at all is a rapidly changing > amorphous blob at best. > Not true. There is strong core of established interface-Language that has emerged in the last 30-40 years. Most exceptions from it are really just single exceptions. Though, there is also an ongoing trend to evolve it even further. But even there it evolves without ignoring the old language. > I say this because I spend about half my day using *emacs.* > Emacs is not a GUI. But even the small GUI-parts that emacs has, are following the established GUI-language. emacs has seen many "conventions" and many "standards" come and go and yet > it has remained mostly as it was since it was young. > Not really. Even emacs experience some fundamental itnerface-changes in the recent years. Helm, which-keys, hydra, God&Evil-mode, they all are extrem changes from vanilla. Vanilla emacs only can remain as it is because it's not neccessary to change it, because everyone is using plugins to make their prefered interface, or using a starterkit to let other people do that cumbersome work for them. To this day it is not the most popular editor/IDE, not by far, but it is > unarguably one of the most feature complete and powerful editors/IDEs in > existence. Questionable. When I came to Leo I distinctly remember the top level tabs being odd, I > didn't really make sense of it at the time but now that you point it out I > realize it's because you are right that it isn't too common. However, not > being common is a poor indicator of desirability. and utility. > It's not only the tabs being odd. Leo as a whole is very uncommon and dreadful for the established flows of people. It's very off-putting for first contacts, and even later it remains a tool that one must constantly fight to get things done. And many of those problems could be avoided with proper handling. The lazy or unprofessional (however you wanna see it) handling of interface-language is just the most visable sign of this. Over a decade ago Microsoft decided to break convention with the switch to > ribbon based menus and to this day they are cursed by many. > They are also praised by many. Fundamental changes always come with cursed and praises. But leos poblems are not because of fundamental changes. The primary measure against which any software feature should be judged is > in it's utility. > The primay measure for a tool is how fast and well you can adapt it into your workflow, and how big the overhead for it's usage is. Time is the essential part for anything. To argue that top level tabs have markedly less utility than other layouts, > to the point of driving users away from Leo, borders on nonsense. True. The impact of top-tabs is low. But for new Users it can be a nagging little point that adds another value to the list of reasons to avoid the tool. For someone who test 10 different outliners to find a start somewhere, those little details bear a heavy weight. For someone who specifically went to leo because of someting only leo can offer, it doesn't matter much. There is no doubt that Leo could be marketed more professionally, given > that Leo is not a commercial product it is hardly surprising. When somebody > steps up to volunteer their time to take on that role I suspect Leo will > attain greater use and visibility. Not really. The opposition against neccessary fundamental changes here is strong. I've seen many people here over the years trying to make an attempt. It usually ends all the same way. Every projects has the state it deserves and wishes for, and leo is not different there. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
