On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 13:25:39 -0500 "Edward K. Ream" <edream...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 28, 2017 at 12:05 PM, Terry Brown <terrynbr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On Wed, 28 Jun 2017 06:39:41 -0700 (PDT) > > The success of the current > > > > code in the context of 1. is questionable, seeing new and even > > experienced users struggle with settings management. > > Imo few (none?) of those problems arise because Leo represents > settings in .leo files. Well, no, I guess using .leo files for storage isn't a problem from the user point of view. I think having to edit an outline and use text markup and decide which file to edit and how to express values are challenges for users, depending on their backgrounds. Using a DB for setting storage would, to me anyway, make it much easier to write a more friendly interface for updating settings. > I object to changing the UI on the grounds that it would simplify > code. I don't want people to have to change their settings files! > Maybe a prototype will convince me that settings files are dumb > idea. Until then, I remain skeptical. Of course. I think simplifying code has value in its own right, although it may not always be a priority. And in this case simplifying code may make it easier to simplify part of the user experience. But degrading or even perturbing the user experience simply to simplify code would not make sense. > Incremental proposals > would likely be easier to understand and evaluate. Hmm, I suppose a settings DB could be made to shadow the existing settings and then used as a basis to demo alternative settings editing. Cheers -Terry -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "leo-editor" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to leo-editor+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to leo-editor@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/leo-editor. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
