Why is there a difference between "export" and "save as"? I can think of implementation-specific reasons for the separation, but no user-centric reasons.
Right now there is: * create word document: save-as * create postscript: export * create pdf: print I think that changing it to * create word document: save-as * create postscript, pdf: export seems like only going half-way toward fixing the fundamental problem that if I want to create a different type of document I have to remember which documents require one action and which documents require a different action. owen On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 16:54 +0000, Ross Burton wrote: > On Thu, 2005-12-15 at 16:01 +0000, Iain * wrote: > > I don't know where I'd put a Print to File option, but I'd like it as > > a seperate entity instead. I'm wondering out loud now, if it could be > > linked to the other file operations (such as open, save, etc.) , > > because its really an operation that results in a file, rather than an > > operation that operates on the printer. But suggesting that would be > > something that I'll be shot down in flames for. > > OpenOffice has an Export option, which currently supports PDF and HTML. > I'd expect generic PostScript to fall happily in there, which is what > people generally mean when they print to a file. > > The only use-case for 'print to file' I can think of, apart from to work > around broken applications (where we fix the apps), is when you have > designed a document and the print shop wants a Postscript file. For > this, Export seems sensible. > > Ross > _______________________________________________ > Usability mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
