turning off konq extensions by default

Scott Wheeler wheeler at kde.org
Sun Jan 9 10:48:59 GMT 2005

On Sunday 09 January 2005 10:21, Anders Lund wrote:
> On Sunday 09 January 2005 03:07, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> > Implementation aside, I think if we're going to turn on certain
> > "extensions" by default that they probably shouldn't show up in the
> > "extensions" configuration.  Right now the menu entry should probably be
> > "Stuff you can turn off if it annoys you too much:"
> That is the oppersite extremism, which isn't good eiter.

Yes, I'm being a little scatterbrained (who, me?) -- but essentially my point, 
while probably not explained well, is that if we have a feature that we think 
is essential, it probably doesn't make sense to implement it as an 

I'm not saying that it shouldn't be possible to turn it off (say, in the 
normal config dialog) -- I just think that having a clear set of extensions 
that *extend* the browser would probably be better.  Right now the only thing 
that I'm aware of that we actually use to define an "extension" is that it 
uses the API for that, but that doesn't mean anything to the user...

I'm actually rather fond of the way that Firefox handles plugins; I think the 
line between "core" and "plugin" is much more clear and that the interface 
for getting them and managing them is quite good.

> One of real users (so they say on irc) reasons to like KDE is that it can be
> configured :o 

...and on the other side probably the number one complaint about KDE is the 
clutter.  The trick is finding the middle road.

> > Would probably be enough.  Having 30 different options (yes, there are
> > currently 30) is pretty clearly more targeted at web developers than at
> > normal users.
> Absolutely rigt. But the details must be visible, and if we remove all the
> slightly different entries, we could add the ability to define on (there is
> a power user feature).

Well, what I was kind of getting at is that if we keep it we could put a very 
simple one directly in Konqueror (if we decide that it's an essential 
feature) and leave the more complex one for web developers as an extension.

> > But then I'm not really sure that I agree either.  Do most users really
> > need to turn these features on and off so often that they should be in
> > the menus by default?  Again, committing the terrible sin of using myself
> > as an example -- I've never once used these switches.
> And if 'most people' don't, it should be removed, or do I get you wrong?

If most people don't you have to seriously consider if, where and how 
something fits into an interface.  In this case I'd say that if the 
overwhelming majority of users aren't using an extension that it should be 
off by default (but not removed).  I'm sure there are corner cases where I'd 
renig on that, but in general I think it's a decent rule of thumb.


diff -u life.cpp~ life.cpp
--- life.cpp~   2002/03/19 07:44:28
+++ life.cpp   2002/04/09 15:49:39
-#include <sleep.h>
+#include <caffeine.h>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list