On Fri, 31 Mar 2000, Henry Nelson wrote:
> > > Also, what does that
> > > mean -- the change will take effect only in the present session,
> > > and will not be saved in .lynxrc? I'm not sure that would be clear
> > > to all users.
[kw:]
> > What else could it mean? I really still don't understand why you
> > dislike it so much. Is the wording wrong? How _can_ it be made
> > clearer?
>
> My point is simply that I don't think all users are aware that .lynxrc
> and the O)ption Menu are related, _sometimes_. You're probably right
> that the wording is fine, and needs to be said
Still, if you _have_ an idea for changing the wording (under the given
constraints), please make a proposal.
I think it should not mention .lynxrc, though. The novice user shouldn't
have understand this implementation detail (the filename) in order to
make sense of the text, just understand that options are 'saved' somehow
for the next session.
(At least, this seems to have been the design of the old-style Options
Menu.)
But maybe it should say "saved for the next session" instead of just
"saved", or something like that.
> -- it's the mixing of
> the two kinds of options on one page that is throwing me off (above).
[ ... ]
Concrete proposals...
> > > I don't understand the need for toggles like "HTML error recovery (!),"
> > > which already have a key assigned to them, to be on the options page.
> >
> > Well, that _is_ debateable. We can start another thread about it if
> > you like...
> >
> > Part of the answer is probably historical precedence.
> > You may want to mime old CHANGES entries, maybe the reveal some
> > insight int why Fote thought that e.g. 'Raw/CJK' mode should be in
>
> Exactly. Doesn't really need another thread. Just do it. No need
> for history to make history of Lynx.
Just do what? (I'm not trying to be facetious. Just still don't
know what you want done.)
But perhaps you should more concretely ask the folks who _did_ add
options to the page that were already available as a one-key toggle.
Some of them are still around. They must have had some reason.
> > > (Or does it do something ^V doesn't?)
> >
> > No.
>
> Isn't that one way Lynx competes: a single keystroke does it. Why
> does someone want to punch in a sequence of keys to do what one key
> will do?
I couldn't say, only speculate.
(I haven't added any one of those you want gone, to the best of my
recollection. So it seems I basically agree, those are unnecessary
there. But I don't feel like taking them away, after someone apparently
came to the conclusion that they should be there.)
> I thought in part we were talking about taste. Anyway, being able to
> recognize a compact group quickly (hierarchal structure) and make
> changes quickly (radio buttons) might "make sense."
As a side note, 'making changes quickly' is still best done with the
key-based Option Menu incarnation (for those options that are available
there). The fonrms-based approach jsut can't be taht quick, you always
need more keystrokes.
Klaus
