Don't take me wrong. I perfectly agree that colors have no meaning. They had once upon a time on the dorado, but we don't care.
What I say is that there is a level of indirection between physical button and semantic buttons: (left, middle, right) -> logical buttons (whatever you call them) -> semantic buttons (operate, menu, extra) So either you keep the logical indirection, or you remove it. If you keep it, the naming is not that obvious and has to be abstract. So the colours are not a bad choice from this POV. Call it alpha, beta gamma if you will, but then you are changing things just for the sake of changing. If you remove the indirection, then you have to wonder if you don't loose something, and that was the meaning behind my post. I don't have the answer to this one, but you have to think of it. It's a bit boring to explain one's joke, sorry for that ;). Nicolas 2011/1/24 Marcus Denker <marcus.den...@inria.fr>: > > On Jan 24, 2011, at 9:36 AM, Nicolas Cellier wrote: > >> Sure, we got the right to change historical code. >> >> But beware, naming actions with physical button positioncould be >> misleading... >> ... it does not take into account the logical indirection. >> >> We could as well use intention revealing names like selectButton >> operateButton haloButton... >> .. Err, no more halo in Pharo, these names are prematurely frozen and >> don't take future evolutions into account. >> >> Oh, we need some more neutral naming scheme, but for sure, something >> less colorfull that these childish st-80 and e toys. >> I suggest you use whiteButton greyButton blackButton, or maybe >> paleBlueButton, lightCyanButton to be more inline with an aqua theme > > *no* Colors have no *meaning* in this context. I can not even tell you the > three colors we have now. And not at all which is supposed to be the middle > one. > > Colors for buttons make no sense *at all* if your buttons have no colors. > > Marcus > > > -- > Marcus Denker -- http://www.marcusdenker.de > INRIA Lille -- Nord Europe. Team RMoD. > > >
