You're so funny. You're saying if it's not one extreme it should be the other.
> IF THE DEFINITION OF TO DESIGN A USER INTERFACE, WERE WHAT YOU ARE > ASKING FOR, I WOULD ADD IN EVERYPLACE ONE SHORTCUT FOR EVERYFUNCTION. Answer my question: Among the following browsers: Netscape 1, Netscape 2, Netscape 3, Netscape 4.x, Netscape 6, IE 1, IE 2, IE 3, IE 4.x, IE 5.x, IE 6.0, Opera 1- 6, even Arachne for heaven's sake. How many of these browsers have a home button on the Navigation Tolbar? (Ans: All) How many have a button to the cookie manager window o the Navigation Toolbar: (Ans: None) But since you seem to miss the point about user interfaces (gosh do I have to lecture?) A *good* user interface is not one that accomodates each and every one person, but one that accomodates the majority of people. A good UI is one where the end user will naturally feel at peace. And any good programmer knows that the majority of people expect to see what is considered well established user interface. How many percent of end users actually *want* a button to a cookie manager in the toolbar? Out of a million users you'd probably be the only one. How many percent of end users actually *want* a button to Home in the toolbar? Out of a million users I'd probably be in the majority. I'm not talking about individual user habits but general user patterns. So you see, your analogy is *entirely off the mark*. An advanced user interface first and foremost conforms to well established user patterns. Your UI does not. It goes to show how little you know about strategic user interface design. > NOW, I HAVE THE MOST ADVANCED USER > INTERFACE IN THE PLANET. :-) No, it's the most stupid.
