Hi,
I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to toggle UI
items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or statusbar should be labeled
"Show/hide Foo" depending on the visibility of Foo rather than
implemented as a checkable "[ ] Show Foo" item.
Having started to work on converting
Hi Aurélien,
On Saturday 06 November 2010 15:31:45 Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to toggle UI
> items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or statusbar should be labeled
> "Show/hide Foo" depending on the visibility of Foo rather than
> implemen
On 06/11/2010 16:47, Christoph Feck wrote:
>> # The "Fix my mess" plan
>> [... long plan involving reverting ...]
>> This should reduce the risk of build failures since any application I
>> missed which switched to showHide*() methods will continue to build but
>> get warnings for one week. Does th
On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
> Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> > I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to
> > toggle UI items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or statusbar
> > should be labeled "Show/hide Foo" depending on the visibility of
> > Foo rather than
On 07/11/2010 14:16, David Jarvie wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:31:44 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
>> On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
>>> Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to
toggle UI items such as menubar, toolbars, sideb
On 06/11/2010 22:26, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
> Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
>> I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to toggle UI
>> items such as menubar, toolbars, sidebars or statusbar should be labeled
>> "Show/hide Foo" depending on the visibility of Foo rather than
>> implemented a
On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:31:44 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
> > > Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> > > > I have been quite busy trying to convince everyone actions to
> > > > toggle UI items such as menubar,
On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote:
> On Sunday 07 November 2010 19:12:46 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > On Sunday 07 November 2010, David Jarvie wrote:
> > > On Sunday 07 November 2010 09:31:44 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> > > > On Saturday 06 November 2010, Ingomar Wesp wrote:
> > > > > Aurélien Gâ
Am 11/7/2010 20:12, schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> Quite frankly, I cannot image the number of users which grasp "[ ] Show
> Toolbar" but not "[ ] Toolbar" to be significant. Surely, there are a
> lot of not that computer literate people (like my parents) who
> understand neither one nor the other. But
On Monday 08 November 2010 08:06:58 Johannes Sixt wrote:
> How is a checkable menu entry that is not checked different from a menu
> entry that is not checkable, hm? There is *no* difference.
That depends on the used style. With Skulpture, for example, any checkable
entry shows a check box, eithe
On Monday 08 November 2010 14:35:16 Christoph Feck wrote:
> On Monday 08 November 2010 08:06:58 Johannes Sixt wrote:
> > How is a checkable menu entry that is not checked different from a menu
> > entry that is not checkable, hm? There is *no* difference.
>
> That depends on the used style. With S
Am Monday 08 November 2010 schrieb Johannes Sixt:
> How is a checkable menu entry that is not checked different from a menu
> entry that is not checkable, hm? There is *no* difference.
Broken UI style? There "*can be*" a difference ;-P
Unchecked Box:
Bespin, Skulpture, Oxygen, QtCurve, Motif/CDE,P
On 08/11/2010 14:18, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Monday 08 November 2010 schrieb Johannes Sixt:
>> How is a checkable menu entry that is not checked different from a menu
>> entry that is not checkable, hm? There is *no* difference.
> Broken UI style? There "*can be*" a difference ;-P
>
> Unchecked
On 06/11/2010 15:31, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> # The "Fix my mess" plan
>
> I would like to revert r1186566, r1186567 and r1192393:
>
> http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1186566
> http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1186567
> http://websvn.kde.org/?view=revision&revision=1192
On Tuesday 09 November 2010 15:52:01 Hans Meine wrote:
> Hi Aurélien,
>
> I just want to express how much I appreciate your judiciousness to say you
> dislike your own proposal now. I was quite sceptical about it, but did not
> want to go bikeshedding, so I am happy you changed your mind *and* ac
Hi Aurélien,
I just want to express how much I appreciate your judiciousness to say you
dislike your own proposal now. I was quite sceptical about it, but did not
want to go bikeshedding, so I am happy you changed your mind *and* actually
made this whole public experiment. It's certainly an a
On 09/11/2010 15:52, Hans Meine wrote:
> Hi Aurélien,
>
> I just want to express how much I appreciate your judiciousness to say you
> dislike your own proposal now. I was quite sceptical about it, but did not
> want to go bikeshedding, so I am happy you changed your mind *and* actually
> made
On Monday 08 November 2010, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> On 08/11/2010 14:18, Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > Am Monday 08 November 2010 schrieb Johannes Sixt:
> >> How is a checkable menu entry that is not checked different from a
> >> menu entry that is not checkable, hm? There is *no* difference.
> >
> >
On Tuesday 09 November 2010 23:40:06 Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> So what is Apple's solution for the problem of checkable menu entries?
> What is Microsoft's solution?
GNOME uses "X Toolbar" [1]
MacOS X uses "Show/Hide Toolbar" [2]
[1] http://library.gnome.org/devel/hig-book/stable/menus-types.html.en
19 matches
Mail list logo
