On Friday 19 August 2011 11:14:36 Thomas Zander wrote: > On Friday 19 August 2011 10.35.37 Andrea Diamantini wrote: > > > So, in short, it doesn't make sense to me, and from experience I > > > know > > > that it doesn't make sense to a lot more people > > > > It seems to me you are suffering the same problem you see in my > > workflow. > > In fact I sincerely trust that the quit = close window habit comes from > > the multitasking design of konqueror.Let's expose the problem in this > > terms: if we add the quit action at the > > end of the rekonq menu (in the same way Firefox or Chromium do) the > > quit > > action now will close one window, while in Firefox and Chrom*, the same > > will close the whole app. > > Thats why I wrote this at the end of my last email ;) > > > > Being consistent and predictable is important for user satisfaction. > > > If > > > you can't be consistent with everyone else, make sure you go with > > > the > > > 'safe' ones so losing work is cut to a minumum. > > reusing the behavior of firefox and chromium looses more user-data than > reusing the behavior of other KDE apps. > > Also, firefox and chromium were designed for Windows first, where both > virtual desktops and activities are not present. The concept of running > remote X applications is even unique to Linux. > > > And I'm quite sure this make sense to a lot of more > > people of the ones used > > to dolphin/konqueror behavior. > > At the cost of hurting the ones that are used to the KDE interaction model. > The alternative is that those used to Firefox have to press Ctrl-Q the same > amount of times they have windows open. Which is not exactly painful, is > it? I mean, if you put a lot of time into opening 10 rekonq windows, how > much of a pain is it to close those 10 windows too? > I'd say its worth the time when this means the user will avoid loosing > windows that were not meant to be closed.
You are probably not used a lot to read all bugs reported against rekonq. I can just say that for people using a browser is a really common experience in every OS they use. And their experience is basically based on Firefox behavior. That's the road, you can't do nothing about this. > Bottom line still is that rekonq is a KDE application, behaving similar to > other KDE applications makes a lot of sense. Yes, it makes sense for me too. But this cannot be a "forced model", otherwise it can be always applied against decisions like menubar, webkit/khtml, the development itself of rekonq... > Anyway, I've done as much as I can in defending the usability side as I see > it, any decision you make is fine with me :) Let me joke a bit, it seems you "pushed" your vision a bit too much ;) IMHO, the question is not closed. I'd like to hear again Felix and the other opinions about what it is better to do. -- Andrea Diamantini, adjam GPG Fingerprint: 57DE 8E32 7D1A 0E16 AA52 59D8 84F9 3ECD DBF9 730F rekonq project WEB: http://rekonq.kde.org IRC: rekonq@freenode _______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
