Christoph Sch?fer wrote: > Hi Louis, > > [snip] > >> Actually, this could be looked at as a very good example of >> redundancy. Something we should probably want to avoid in Scribus. I >> say "should" because I know it's easier to say than to do and Scribus >> is not redundancy-free. > > > You're right, of course, and in many cases it's impossible to avoid > redundancy. Taking care of usability means tracking issues and > discussing them until a reasonable solution is found.
I think this issue is an example of why redundancy is not only good, but even necessary. There needs to be some kind of Darwinian approach that allows certain methods to survive, because in the end they make sense to the most users. Many people start out complaining that access to feature X is bad because "that's not how Indesign or Quark does it", but their decisions may have originally been arbitrary, and sooner or later a different approach is more intuitive. With software that I use a lot, I like keyboard equivalents, which typically is a form of redundancy, but not something you necessarily want to do without. Greg
