Am Dienstag, den 01.02.2005, 22:52 +0000 schrieb Alan Horkan: > On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Kai Willadsen wrote: > > > Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:49:53 +1000 > > From: Kai Willadsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Usability] HIG Clarification for "Close Without Saving" > > button > > > > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 16:54 +0000, Alan Horkan wrote: > > > [removed the CC's] > > > > > > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > > > > > I'll answer on this one. It would make sense to have "Discard", > > > > "Save", "Cancel" if the question was "There are some unsaved changes > > > > in this document. What do you want to do with these changes?" > > > > > > > > I.e. it must be clear that "Discard" or "Save" is about _changes_, > > > > whereas "Cancel" is about the action of closing. > > > > > I think that Discard is much stronger language than "Close without Saving" > > > and users might be more likely to consider it something they probably dont > > > want to do. > > > > The problem with "Discard" is that as a verb in a dialog in a document- > > based application, it should apply to the document, and it doesn't. > > You're not asking whether the user wants to discard the document, just > > whether they want to discard the changes, which isn't apparent unless > > you read the whole dialog text. > > Very good point. > > I still think this is the least worst option. > > I have been known to value consistancy more than most people though, so > there's my bias clear as crystal. I think on the basis of a cross desktop > consistancy alone I should probably go forward and try and get my > GTK_STOCK_DISCARD added. At least then those who want consistancy can set > it.
Would you be ok with adding GTK_STOCK_DISCARD as well as GTK_STOCK_DISCARD_CHANGES? -- Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
