Changing my mind: reverting my menubar, toolbars and statusbar changes

[David Jarvie]

On Sunday 07 November 2010 19:12:46 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:31:44 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
> > > > Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> > > > > I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to
> > > > > toggle UI items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or
> > > > > statusbar should be labeled "Show/hide Foo" depending on the
> > > > > visibility of Foo rather than implemented as a checkable "[ ]
> > > > > Show Foo" item.
> > > > 
> > > > Having followed the discussion and how you fought to get this
> > > > change in, I'm a bit saddened that it turned out to not work so
> > > > well in practice.
> > > > 
> > > > Maybe we can tackle the underlying issue in another way. If I
> > > > understood the problem correctly, it basically boils down to
> > > > 
> > > > [X] Show Foo
> > > > 
> > > > textually implying the opposite of the action that the user is
> > > > going to trigger if (s)he clicks it. If we keep the checkboxes,
> > > > maybe we are able to change the text, so that it is obvious that
> > > > it describes the current state rather than an action by changing
> > > > the verb into an adjective:
> > > > 
> > > > [X] Foo shown
> > > > [X] Foo visible
> > > > [X] Foo enabled
> > > > 
> > > > Just an idea...
> > > 
> > > IMHO that does not really fix the problem. I think the real problem
> > > is that we think that an additional qualifier like "Show" or
> > > "shown" is necessary. As if our users would not understand what
> > > the state of the checkbox preceding the menu entry signifies.
> > > 
> > > I just had a look at Firefox (maybe others can check applications
> > > from other "vendors" like Apple, Microsoft, etc.)
> > > 
> > > Firefox has the options to show/hide certain UI components in the
> > > View menu (while we have them in the Settings menu). In this menu
> > > Firefox simply lists the UI components names without any verbs,
> > > adjectives, etc., i.e.
> > > 
> > > View
> > > 
> > >      Toolbars
> > >      
> > >       [x] Navigation Toolbar
> > >       [x] Bookmarks Toolbar
> > >  
> > >  [x] Status Bar
> > >  
> > >      Sidebar
> > >      
> > >       [ ] Bookmarks
> > >       [ ] History
> > > 
> > > Does it really matter that Firefox has those options in the View
> > > menu while we have them in the Settings menu? I don't think so.
> > > 
> > > So, why don't we simply get rid of "Show" (and the "Shown" in
> > > Settings-
> > > 
> > > >Toolbars Shown). IMHO those qualifiers are totally superfluous in
> > > 
> > > combination with checkboxes. Our convention to add the "Show" does
> > > stem from a time where we could (and did) hide the checkboxes of
> > > checkable menu entries. Apparently, with Qt 4 the checkboxes of
> > > checkable menu entries cannot be hidden. Since we are already at
> > > Qt 4.7 it seems very unlikely that QtDF will ever change this. So
> > > why insist on a convention that does not make any sense anymore?
> > 
> > I agree about removing "Show" etc. But if this is done, the menu
> > items should be moved to the View menu. In the Firefox example you
> > give, the menu name (View) puts the meaning of the menu items in
> > context and acts as the verb, giving the necessary hint to the user
> > that the checkboxes determine the view state of the respective
> > items. Removing the verb and leaving them in the Settings menu would
> > IMO make their meaning a bit unclear.
> 
> Do you really think this would be a bit unclear? What else would an 
> unchecked UI element in any menu mean?
> 
> Quite frankly, I cannot image the number of users which grasp "[ ] Show 
> Toolbar" but not "[ ] Toolbar" to be significant. Surely, there are a 
> lot of not that computer literate people (like my parents) who 
> understand neither one nor the other. But people who understand the 
> former, but not the latter? I claim that such people do not exist. Prove 
> me wrong! ;-)

I can't prove you wrong. :-(  What I'm saying is that putting the items in the View menu would make it a bit clearer because the menu items would be unambiguously related to viewing, so there would be less opportunity to misunderstand them. I quite agree with you that there are people who probably wouldn't understand either, but that shouldn't stop us trying to make things as clear as possible for those who might be capable of understanding.

-- 
David Jarvie.
KDE developer.
KAlarm author -- http://www.astrojar.org.uk/kalarm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20101107/66242ff8/attachment.sig>