Hi Tomasz, You are right of course, but ...
Sunday, March 4, 2007, 7:33:24 PM, you wrote: TJ> 1. There are TWO words that are different and they are used TJ> in specific context: TJ> the DELETE - in AB means deletion from database TJ> REMOVE - means removal from watch list without deleting it from database. "Delete" appears on the first-level context menu, and it isn't clear until the dialog box pops up that, "what is being *deleted* from what". Is it a problem to reconfigure the context menus? You know the implied context of course, because you wrote the program. Do you imagine that everyone thinks like you do, or can read your mind? I didn't think so. TJ> 2. There is a confirmation box saying CLEARLY that when you choose TJ> DELETE - the symbol will be deleted from the DATABASE. TJ> Database is written in UPPERCASE to make sure you read it. You are absolutely right, TJ. But is it a problem to change the default from "Do something that CANNOT cannot be undone" to "Do NOTHING, unless you choose to deliberately override a 'failsafe' default"? People are not, generally speaking, as careful or as clever as you are, TJ. TJ> If you, pressed "YES" not reading the message box then you should TJ> start reading message boxes. I agree one-hundred percent. I also agree that Communism is the most moral economic system that I can imagine. But I also understand that it violates basic human nature, and is thus void, and unworthy of any further consideration. Do you understand the parallel? (Living in Poland, I should think that you might.) TJ> 3. TJ> Not everything can be put on "top level" menu. Anyway - you can TJ> assign custom keyboard shortcut to any menu so you are free TJ> to assign this too. Really? Can you give me an example of how I can customize the context menu like that? I'd love to do it. The way it is currently laid out is an invitation to making mistakes (even though I have long ago learned the way it works). But to get the menu items that I (and probably others) *USE MOST OFTEN* on the first-level would be a nice improvement. They may be careless mistakes, but the default option should be "No, we won't do anything that can't be undone unless you choose to override the failsafe default". The default answer for "make a new symbol and add it to the database" should be *NO* (even though that can easily be undone). The default answer for any irrevocable deletion should be *NO*. Period. This is just common sense, because human nature is so imperfect. How can you possibly mount an intelligent argument against this? The defaults are ill-advised. You want to take a poll on this? I don't think so. But it's your program, and as such it's not subject to polls. But your logic is wanting here, TJ. These are things you don't want to do unless you *really* want to do them. The defaults should *all* be *NO*, making a user really know, and probably understand, what they are doing. At the very least, changing the defaults would make a user *think*, which I suspect you would be thankful for. I know that you cannot think for everyone, TJ. But I have one simple question for you: How would you like to live in a world where the default answer for, "Would you really like to launch this nuclear missile -- this action CANNOT be undone?", was "Yes" (just as your cat jumped onto the keyboard, hitting one of many "Enter" keys)? I didn't think so. The defaults need to be reconsidered. Best, Yuki