> On 03 Oct 2014, at 12:21, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> Frankly, I see fogbugz issues closed with some ignore/cannot reproduce 
> status, so, I am not creating any of them anymore. Why bother, except for 
> blocking bugs?

that’s a super constructive opinion, that help community a lot. 
thanks for sharing. 

> 
> I have a set of adjustments on my side and work with them. 
> 
> https://gist.github.com/philippeback <https://gist.github.com/philippeback> 
> is where I store them, an in HOExtras in my SmalltalkHub account. 
> 
> Sad attitude, but I tell you how it is for me.
> 
> Phil
> 
> 
> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Esteban Lorenzano <[email protected] 
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> and where is your enhance proposal?
> I made a fogbugz search and I didn’t find anything related to improve “cmd+o"
> 
> Esteban
> 
>> On 03 Oct 2014, at 09:28, [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> Well, I am COMPLAINING LOUDLY about this lack of menu entries then.
>> 
>> I hate this super shrunk list of entries in the playground and the GT 
>> toolset. I love GT, but I hate those damn menus that do not have what I do 
>> need (which is give me the full menu where I do use the same options Kilon 
>> mentioned).
>> 
>> Also, on Cmd-o used to open about all tools, yes, Cmd-o Cmd-p --> Monticello
>> 
>> Cmd-o Cmd-w --> Workspace
>> 
>> Cmd-o Cmd-b --> Browser
>> 
>> etc.
>> 
>> Just GTInspect 
>> 
>> KMCategory allInstances 
>> 
>> and see the two global shortcuts categories (one for Spotlight, one for the 
>> global shortcuts - and yeah, they should have a name displayed other than 
>> nil).
>> 
>> On my own little Pharo, I've set addtional shortcuts for the Finder, the 
>> File Browser etc as these are sorely missing.
>> 
>> And GT as well. Cmd-o Cmd-g for opening a Play<g>round.
>> So that I can keep Cmd-o Cmd-w for opening a Workspace and keeping all of 
>> its abilities intact (and not feel crippled by those replacements).
>> 
>> I actually like Esteban's proposal for Cmd-g as what we do with the 
>> playground is "give it a go", which is different from a doIt, which can stay 
>> local and not have side effects on the right side.
>> 
>> Phil
>> 
>> 
>> On Fri, Oct 3, 2014 at 8:20 AM, Marcus Denker <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 
>> On 02 Oct 2014, at 21:36, Tudor Girba <[email protected] 
>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thu, Oct 2, 2014 at 5:19 PM, kilon alios <[email protected] 
>>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>>> Is it just me or is the Playground a big step back in the usability of 
>>> Pharo ?  
>>> 
>>> For me its Gui makes no sense. Gone is the right click menu which had tons 
>>> of useful actions now you only get like a few options. The tab thing is 
>>> weird to say the least with the navigation of the tabs being in the 
>>> opposite side (bottom) of the navigation of the internal tabs(top). No more 
>>> right arrow menu for shortcuts and many features that workspace had.
>>> 
>>> I will concede that the contextual menu is incomplete. We will work on 
>>> that. In the meantime, the keybindings work as in the classic workspace.
>>> 
>> 
>> And one needs to take into account that the “pull” strategy for menu items 
>> is much better than a “push”: Instead of adding just everything that was 
>> there, wait till people
>> get *really* upset and implement it. This proves that they *really* need it 
>> :-)
>> 
>> In a way we used that strategy *a lot* for Pharo… we removed so many menu 
>> entries everywhere. Or Settings… the amount of settings that I removed, I 
>> guess >100?
>> 
>> And the fun thing is: nobody ever complained :-)
>> 
>> But if I would have asked: you can be sure that someone reacts like “I never 
>> used it but now that you tell me, I want to keep it”.
>> (this is true for every unused feature. Just remove and wait. Never ask. If 
>> you ask you will have to keep it. People react to removing unused features 
>> as if you would
>> take something away from them that was just stored securely for bad times, 
>> as if it would be deeply ingrained in our genes or something).
>> 
>>      Marcus
>> 
> 
> 

Reply via email to