On Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:41:12 -0500 "xOr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 07, 2002 at 12:08:01AM +0930, Tim Riley wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 06, 2002 at 09:33:34AM -0500, xOr wrote: > > > I, for one, see no problem with this config item > > > creep. :) They add enormous amounts of flexibility, at > > > really, no cost. I think the more options (to a > > > point:) the better. > > > > It just seems that some of the proposed config options > > are so obtuse and subtle that the average man on the > > free unix might not understand it. For such things, I > > believe a sensible default is more appropriate. For > > example, a concept like "focus window on workspace > > change" is a behaviour far too complex to convey > > adequatley in a configuration option, and the change in > > behaviour this option toggles is so subtle that, imo, > > not many would notice it if it were absent from the > > config menu. > > Heh, are you, by chance, a ClickToFocus user? Because it > seems to me that that option makes a hell of a lot of > difference when you are using SloppyFocus. :) Also, if the > menu entry doesn't make sense, then there should be a > document describing what each option does more thoroughly. > Make them understandable rather than remove them. I think I have to agree with Tim on this, at least to a certain extent. As a semi-geek, I rely on my hubbie to get me through complex installs and I'm convinced that he would be less than appreciative if I could not even install my own window manager without help. =) Personally, I'd rather move on to a program that's easier to use than spend my days RTFM'ing and asking Jamin question after endless question. At the same time, I could see the need for a few configurable options. For example, I don't think I could live without sloppy focus... If I couldn't reasonably read about in a few quick pages, though, and I'm afraid my wandering mind would lose interest. -- Rachel Collins
