From: Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 00:09:06 +0200
<[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann )> writes: > Lots of people have. Sorry but I haven't seen a detailed and complete proposal yet. If you can point me to one, please do. Here's one: add a text entry box at the bottom of the screen, and use a different key (say, shift-tab) for completion. Attach this label to the entry box: Filename: (to complete, type shift-tab) >> I certainly wouldn't want to miss the current key-navigation >> behaviour. But perhaps you can offer a viable alternative? > > What is the current key navigation behaviour? cursor keys? I > don't really need cursor keys when I do tab completion, and when > I need them, I could easily use my mouse to click. Oh well. I had the impression all along this discussion. You basically have no clue on how the new dialog works. That doesn't shed a good light on the new dialog but it also shows that you are rather ignorant. I think I asked you and everyone else to actually try to work with the dialog. I guess I will have to sit down and write a manual since you obviously haven't understood how it works. I could just as easily say that you have no clue how Marc or I work -- please keep the personal attacks out of it. You did ask Marc to try to work with the new dialog, he complied, and found it didn't help him. > Or, put difefretly: in what ways would a tetx entry with > completion conflict with being able to use the file dialogs other > features with the mouse (and then: with the keyboard). I have already explained that in all details. See my other mail in this thread in case you missed earlier explanations. As best as I can tell, the only substantive issue is the fact that the tab key, if used for completion, would conflict with the tab key, as used to jump around the other widgets. I propose using a different key sequence -- shift-tab -- for completion. > If a number of users complain about usability issues, askign them to make > scientific studies before their complaints can be taken seriously is just > plain idiotic. > > What counts is reality, and the current file dialogs, wether they worked > in studies or not, fail this for quite a number of people. Marc, it is you who's being idiotic here. You state that there are a number of people. What number? How large is that number compared to the number of happy users? We can hardly decide anything unless we know the answer to these questions. I've seen quite a number of people -- Marc, Alastair Robinson, Bill Kendrick, Jernej Simoncic, Joao S. O. Bueno Calligaris, Michael Thaler, and myself -- complain more or less vociferously about this, for what appears to be more or less the same reason. Alan Horkan appears to have at least some complaints about it, Dennis Bjorklund appears to be defending it mildly, and you're defending it strongly. So by my count, we have Oppose/strongly oppose 7 Mildly oppose 1 Mildly support 1 Strongly support 1 Is this proof? No. Perhaps the majority of GIMP/GTK users who are not on the list strongly prefer the new dialog. However, my experience on the net suggests that if there were other people on the list who strongly support the new dialog that at least a few of them would have popped up by now. What's more, the complaints are all very specific, and are focused on exactly the same issue -- the lack of a text entry box for a filename. Nobody here is complaining about anything else. Isn't that at least enough reason to take a closer look at the issue? -- Robert Krawitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project lead for Gimp Print -- http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net "Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works." --Eric Crampton _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.xcf.berkeley.edu http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
