On Dec 13, 2007 12:37 AM, Davor Cubranic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wednesday 12 December 2007 02:00:29 Mimi Yin wrote: > > My understanding of the question was: Why use a complicated new > > widget to do what everybody else uses a simple checkbox for? My reply > > was that the functionality in Chandler isn't the same as the > > functionality everybody else uses a simple checkbox for. So it's > > possible our problem has more to do with providing better visual > > feedback to more effectively communicate what's different about > > Chandler overlays. > > I started up iCal the other day to see what it's like and noticed that > its calendar sidebar appears to be very similar to Chandler's sidebar: > multiple calendars (collections) can be overlaid on the screen, but > only one is "selected" and new events go into it by default. I haven't > used iCal enough to completely test this, but are there any significant > differences from Chandler's sidebar? I'm asking because iCal uses > checkboxes for choosing overlays and a highlight for the active > selection. >
This is indeed the $64,000 question. Mimi seems to insist Chandler is doing something magical and unique in this regard. I dont see it. As far as I can tell chandler and iCal have exactly the same underlying design in this regard. Chandler just makes it more confusing - almost seemingly with intent. Also, iCal does another thing which I have said before I think would be helpful, which is the ability to hide the information panel on the right to minimize clutter. Indeed much could be learned from ical. Hank _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "Design" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/design
