On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:25 PM, Evan Stade <est...@chromium.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 4:18 PM, Peter Kasting <pkast...@google.com> wrote:
>
>> * We have crazy word wrapping. The bookmark sync text could fit on one
>> line. Why does it wrap? etc. elsewhere
>>
>
> yes, we can save two lines in bookmark sync by removing the blank line and
> disallowing line wrap on the first label (although I'd guess that might
> force the dialog to be too wide in some locales).
>
Why do we need to disallow wrapping? Why can't we just wrap at the right
margin, instead of somewhere in the middle of the dialog? We aren't just
manually splitting this into two arbitrary strings, are we?
* What is with the blank line below that text?
>>
>
> read original post
>
My bad, missed that
* "Show Saved Passwords" button should be vertically level with "offer to
>> save passwords" radio button, horizontally on right side of dialog (a la
>> Firefox)
>>
>
> this suggestion conflicts with the gnome hig
>
I'm not convinced Chrome in general complies with the Gnome HIG. In general
I'd be OK with a violation like this.
* Appearance section is a mess. Why are there buttons for GTK/Classic theme
>> when it looks like what's desired is a radio button pair?
>>
>
> to match windows
>
But Windows just has a "reset" button. It's not obvious that's how these
are functioning. This looks more like a 3-radio group: "GTK" "Classic"
"<name of custom theme>" with a "get themes" button by the third one.
Why are there these other options? We should decide, based on what the
>> user's windowmanager best supports, which combo of settings will work best
>> and just do it. We don't give Windows Aero users a button called "use
>> classic theme" or Mac users a button to use the system-style (down-hanging,
>> square-edged) tabs.
>>
>
> not plausible. Windows and Mac have the advantage of only a single window
> manager, or very few WMs if you count different editions of the same WM.
> Linux has tons of WM and each provides a different set of functionality to
> the user, mostly through the window frame. We can either force all users to
> give up all their WM functionality (no go) or give up on the custom frame
> for linux altogether (no go).
>
I'm not convinced. It seems easy to enumerate the dozen most common WMs
(KWM, blackbox, fluxbox, etc.) and decide what's best for each of them, and
that will cover most cases. For the rest, we use the window manager frame
because we don't know what they might do.
The whole issue with removing options is that you have to be willing to make
choices on the user's behalf and presume you know what's best. It's easy to
punt things to options. That's how we get products like Seamonkey. Chrome
should be the opposite. We should be arrogant.
PK
--
Chromium Developers mailing list: chromium-dev@googlegroups.com
View archives, change email options, or unsubscribe:
http://groups.google.com/group/chromium-dev
