On Sunday, March 28, 2004, at 03:52 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
From: j <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: (long) Transparent IDE elements and other problems To: How to use Revolution <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
If you're trying to move 50 images of scenery (all with blue sky let say) from the back of an album of 500 images in front of the images of trains (say they're all very dark), even the smallest size, where you can't pick out any features, has its uses.
True, it's just there are better ways of implementing the software's interface for this use. We can list specific, exceptional instances to justify nearly every design option, no matter how silly (for example, assigning keystroke mnemonics to every menu item and button); that doesn't mean they are good interface design choices for the target audience.
J.
It's certainly possibly to make bad UI decisions in programs (lord knows I have in the past...), but I'm not sure having very small thumbnails is one of them. I'm interested though that this issue triggered your "it smells like a bad UI decision" bit. Mind if I ask a couple of questions?
1) If you were designing iPhoto or an equivalent, what is the min size that you would have specified for thumbnails and why?
2) In the case of selecting and moving a big batch of thumbnails as I mentioned above, would you have decided it wasn't important (and therefore not support it), or would you come up with another way to do it?
3) And maybe the most telling question of all, do you have large number of photographs on your computer, and if so what program do you use to organize them?
-- Frank
_______________________________________________ use-revolution mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-revolution
