>Um, well, MetaCard error dialogue already lets the user choose to edit the
>script. In other words, I think it's fine. Givin the user the choice is very
>good. The error dialog also tells the user line and character. And if the user
>still has an error when the script is saved the script (unlike HC) will refuse
>to save till the error is corrected.
Eric,
I had forgotten that it does. However, I like HC's approach of displaying
the errors one after the other as it's not as demotivating as being
presented a list of 50 or so errors of which 48 are only a result of the
first two.
The errors it reports when a script editor is closed are parse-time
errors. That is, errors where unsupported commands are used. However, there
are more errors to follow at runtime (i.e. you'll rarely see a "can't
divide by string" error message when you close the script editor window if
you're dividing by a variable). I think it gives users a false sense of
security if they get error messages when they close a script editor. But
really, it's a matter of personal preference. Does MC now ask whether users
want to save the script when you changed it? 2.2 didn't do that.
>This is one example of what I think is the real 'problem' of the MC interface:
>its sort of clunky because 1) the icons are primitive. Sorry they are.
I fully agree. Most of them look like I had sat down and just swung the
pencil a few times w/o a fatbits view etc. like the drawings I did on my
first day with HC, just plus a few splashes of color.
>2) The
>font, to be UNIVERSAL, is helvetica, a sort of wimpy font which _is difficult
>to read on a grey background even at 14 Point (which I think is too large even
>for a 19" monitor - not that I work in a graphic arts school - oh, wait a
>minute, I do).
We could at least use the "bold" style by default, I guess?
>3) The buttons are a little oversize because they display 14
>point characters and they have to be cross platform compatible.
Yup.
>Other than that I think the MC interface is just fine. Ok, some more menus
>would be nice, neater palettes, and again these are just cosmetic changes.
>
>The _only serious default of the MC interface in terms of programming is that
>the position of the script buttons is not uniform and thus difficult to find
>for novice scripters. Fortunately command-alt double click opens any objects
>script dialogue (a fact which should be but is not documented). Oh, and the
>icon chooser displays 100+ icons and so is a little slow, even on modern
>equipment (its glacial on mine but I've developped a work around).
>
>So, in my opinion real change on the MC interface should focus on aesthetic
>aspects.
Maybe it's a terminology problem. Most of the above paragraph's statements
sound more like conceptual mistakes by my definition of the word. Menu
items and menus have to be arranged to allow being productive. That is,
frequently used features should have their own menu item while rarely used
ones may be hidden in a dialog etc. Button locations are also conceptual
problems, not "just aesthetic". In my definition, when developing a UI
"just aesthetic" issues are whether to use green or blue to highlight a
certain button etc. User Interface design is very much aesthetics by
definition. But I think on most parts you think the same as I in this
regard, we just use different words.
>Really, I have done quite a bit of scripting on the interface. It is not
>exactly the same as HC but it is very similar. It takes about a week to make
>the transition. And it is cross platform.
We don't necessarily need to be 100% HC with the UI, although it might
help to stay close.
>So, I do not plan to redo the script dialogue (execution error) because it
>does already give the user the option to script (for serious errors) and does
>even say which line and which character are the error.
That's right. No need to do this, I just remembered it wrongly.
>What fonts are available cross platform?
>Arial, helvetic, courier, AND?
Times, but I think "Times Roman" and Apple's "Times" are a bit different.
But Internet Exploder comes with "Times Roman", so I guess you could use
it, too.
>Sorry for ranting, but while MC's icons are 'limited' the engine is superb. I
>do not subscribe to the italian school of design (who cares whether it works
>as long as it looks pretty). My design philosophy is more russian (da, uggly.
>Works.)
No need to fiddle around with unnecessary details (I don't expect you to
make every dialog window have bondi-blue corners, it might look cool but
it's unnecessary), however, I think MetaCard's menus really might profit
from being reworked.
Cheers,
-- M. Uli Kusterer
------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.weblayout.com/witness
'The Witnesses of TeachText are everywhere...'
