An attempt at solving KControl's usability problems..

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Sunday 25 January 2004 18:27, Frans Englich wrote:
> On kde-usability I laid a proposal a couple of weeks ago for solving
> KControl's usability and maintenance problems. AFAICT it still needs
> to be shot down(explaining why it's a bad idea), and if that's not
> the case - embrasement. Basically, it needs a thorough review and
> feedback, especially since it's pretty invasive, affecting large
> parts of KDE.
> The best way to get a grip on the proposal is to read this thread:
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-usability&m=107352838517059&w=2
> but instead of the files attached to that thread read the updated
> file attached to this mail. (That is KCM_CONVENTIONS)
>
> Attached KCM_HOWTO is an update of kdebase/kcontrol/HOWTO, needs a
> review and some opinions.
> In contrast to what the thread says, KCM_HOWTO and KCM_CONVENTIONS is
> probably best located on dev.kde.org.
>
> Attached TODO could also be of interest - gives a indicator of what
> suggestions is circulating. (opinions very welcome)

I just want to point out that we will use kcms to embed the 
configuration of all Kontact components in Kontact's configuration 
dialog. Therefore the comment that kcms shouldn't be application 
specific doesn't apply to those kcms. Of course, those kcms should not 
be shown in KControl (because they have to be application specific). So 
this isn't a contradiction to the KCM_CONVENTIONS file. It just shows 
that the KCM_CONVENTIONS file seems to be only applicable to kcms which 
are to be shown in KControl. This should be clarified (it's possible 
that I've overlooked this clarification).

FWIW, using "KCMs" as directory name isn't a good idea. Please consider 
using "kcms".

Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: signature
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20040125/dd9da7cf/attachment.sig>