FontInstaller (Was: Gnome Article on UI Design on /.)

[Torsten Rahn]

Am Dienstag, 23. April 2002 11:25 schrieb Thomas Diehl:
> Am Dienstag, 23. April 2002 10:26 schrieb Torsten Rahn:
> > The original point was that having two listviews next to each other is
> > pretty confusing. ...
> Yes and no. While I can imagine a lot of users who will always be confused
> when confronted with dir listings in any form this is definitely not true
> for a lot of others who find this the clearest approach. Hence probably the

Sorry but I'd call this rather the exception. Usually the most important 
question is: "Which fonts do I have installed?". That's what you need to know 
in the first place. The question "where do I install them from?" becomes only 
important once you want to install a certain font. After installing the font 
you will never ever care about the Source again.
That's why most GUI's (including KDE) don't work the norton commander-way.
They show you what you already have and only if you wish to install/save/open 
something _then_ a small "install from/save to/open - dialog pops up. 

> > - and he has got to realize that the fonts that he "installs to the
> > directories on the right side" are actually those fonts that are used by
> > the system (This fact is written exactly nowhere).
> Becomes clear enough (for me) by the strings "Install from" and "Install
> to" (ordinary users will hardly understand -- or care about -- the

No. Especially newbies who are aware of the fact that folders are displayed 
there will be unsure if they have to choose a certain folder into which they 
have to install their font to make the whole thing work properly.

Also it's made non-obvious by another fact: If the right listview would 
display those fonts which are already installed then why are all those 
folders which I see _empty_ (although I can clearly see in the applications 
that KDE seems to have some fonts installed)? This makes this whole thing 
even look more confusing.

> > In addition he will be confused by words like "Truetype" and "Type1". Ok,
> > there might be some people who know about "Truetype"-fonts (although my
> > Dad doesn't know anything about them
> I think even Windows XP shows still a difference between T1 and TT in the
> icons and it can be pretty important even for ordinary users not to have

There is a huge difference between having the font-type indicated by the icon 
(which people will only notice later on) and grouping fonts by the font type 
from the start (which makes this font type thing looking like a huge issue).
Indicating the fonttype by icon makes the whole thing rather look like a 
nobrainer. 
Grouping them by fonttype does not: To make the whole thing a little bit more 
unfamiliar to you just imagine that KDE would offer you three directories 
while saving a picture: "TIF", "PNG", "BMP" . Would you have to save your 
pictures into those folders imagetype by imagetype? What happens if you don't 
save your fonts into those folders but anywhere else instead? Will those 
images still "work" then - or will KDE fail to display them and they will be 
lost forever if you save them there? And now imagine you aren't aware of the 
concept "imagetype" - Imagine that you only know about "images":  Things will 
even look more scary to you. Just as scary as the ATM-mode of the font 
installer looks to a newbie.

> and TT versions. But if you install both you will get big problems when
> printing, at least in Windows.)

I'd say that 98 % of all users never have to deal with the differences between 
Truetype-fonts and Postscript-fonts as 

- most of them use Truetype almost exclusively
- most of them don't use DTP-applications which install Postscript-fonts by 
default.

> Anyway, I don't care too much what of this goes into Basic mode. But I
> would insist that it can be _vital_ for a DTP pro to ensure that (s)he has
> T1 fonts _only_ installed (and which ones, from where, to what locations).
> Sending TT fonts by mistake to an image setter which is not able to digest
> them properly can still cost you real money in the printing business. (And

Of course I agree with this. And of course I am aware of those good reasons 
why the ATM works like it does. And I agree that it is a very good idea to 
have something similar in terms of concept in KDE to set a good  fundament 
for serious DTP work. 
Still I'm absolutely sure that the ATM-concept will overstrain a newbie who 
"only wants to install some fonts".

> like I said: I would realy like to do my real work one day in KDE, not only
> hobby stuff.) Therefore, having very clear distinctions for T1 and TT at
> least in Advanced mode is important. And it should at least be _possible_
> to see which is which in Basic mode.

I agree with this. Displaying the imagetype by icon (like windows does it) 
would be a good solution imho.

Greetings,
Tackat

> Regards,
>
> Thomas

-- 
Dipl.-Phys. Torsten Rahn 
<tackat at suse.de>   <tackat at kde.org>   <tackat at tackat.org>

KDE - Conquer Your Desktop!
http://www.kde.org