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

[Ingo Klöcker]

On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote:
> 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.

One problem with the View menu is that it's not a standard menu while 
the Settings menu is a standard menu. For example, KAddressBook 4.4 does 
not have a View menu. Other than that I'm not totally opposed to putting 
those options into a View menu.


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20101107/4d79f69e/attachment.sig>