[Gossip-dev] Accelerator key inconsistencies

[CJ van den Berg]

On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 11:42:05AM +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 12:05 +0200, CJ van den Berg wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 07:57:45AM +0200, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> > > CJ van den Berg wrote:
> > > > Closing the Gimp tool window closes all the Gimp windows and exits the
> > > > application. Closing the Gossip roster window doesn't close the chat windows
> > > > /or/ exit the application, so I don't so how you can compare them. More
> > > > importantly, the Gimp is designed that way because closing your tool window
> > > > makes little sense if you still have other Gimp windows open. I don't see
> > > > how that can apply to Gossip's roster window.
> > > 
> > > Maybe you have a different version of Gimp than me and this changed
> > > recently (and mine is too old). But my gimp-tool-window does not have a
> > > Ctrl+w for closing it and pressing the X in the window frame does as in
> > > gossip exit the application (and closing all other windows just as in
> > > gossip).
> > 
> > Well, yes, they are identical. My point was that they *shouldn't* be because
> > the use cases are completely different.
> 
> Huh?
> 
> You are talking about consistencies with other desktop applications one
> minute, then talking about specific use cases allowing you to dump all
> that the next minute.

The consistency I was talking about was that Ctrl-w closes windows and not
just tabs. That is still very much the case.

> Personally, I think the Ctrl+W issue is perfect as it is. It works the
> same as GIMP and I like that. 

Does it really work the same? How do you hide the Gimp tool window?

> > > Are you confusing the ESC for hiding the roster window here?
> > 
> > No, I know exactly what the difference between "hiding" and "closing" a
> > window is. My point is that this difference should *never* be visible to an
> > end user. 
> 
> This is completely open to interpretation. 
> 
> For example, from the user's point of view, hiding the window with
> Escape could mean, just minimise it. It could also mean, hide it
> completely from the task list and the screen.
> 
> The difference between close and hide is measured by the functionality
> that the application provides. For example, I would expect the
> difference between hide and close for the chat window to be almost
> non-existant. But for the roster window, I would expect that difference
> to be, hide the window and close the application.

Please, *I* understand this, and *you* understand this, but it just doesn't
make any sense to a normal user. Please show me just *one* other window on
the GNOME desktop that has a hidden state and a closed state and the
differentiates between the two in the UI.

> > Remember that this thread is about UI inconsistencies.
> 
> See above comment regarding consistencies :)
> 
> > > > Anyway, I didn't actually intend to start a long-winded bike shed thread. I
> > > > just thought that it was pretty obviously a bug, so I thought I'd mention it
> > > > in case no-one had noticed it.  If things are the way they are by design,
> > > > that's fine with me.
> > > 
> > > No worries, just trying to understand how the current way of Gossip is
> > > different from Gimp.
> > 
> > Ok, well as I said above, it's identical, but shouldn't be.
> 
> Why should it be? Consistency? If so, then with what? 

With yourself. (ie. with chat windows)

> Are we going round in circles yet?
> 
> :)

Apparently, yes. :)

> > > Currently the roster window is the main application window of Gossip. It
> > > would be nice to change this (and martyns applet is a way of doing this
> > > and making the applet the main UI of the application and the roster
> > > window just another window as any other that you can show or close, no
> > > need for hide then since you can just remove the window and have a way
> > > to show it again from the applet).
> > > 
> > > If there are other ideas for how to achieve this (I personally don't
> > > consider using only the notification icon for this an option).
> > 
> > Whether or not the window is just hidden or actually closed is irrelevant.
> > It's just an implementation detail as long as the user can't tell the
> > difference. 
> 
> Wait did you say, as long as the user can tell the difference between
> closing and hiding the window it is fine? But you just said there should
> be no visible difference?

I said "*can't* tell the difference", not *can*.

> > Just hiding the window is fine, as long as it's done
> > consistently.
> 
> Again, this is open to implementation, does hiding mean hiding or
> minimising or a combination of both and how is this decided (this is a
> rhetorical question)? 

Like I said before, hide can mean anything you want, but whatever it
means, it must mean the same as close.

-- 
CJ van den Berg

mailto:cj at vdbonline.com
  xmpp:cj at vdbonline.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.imendio.com/pipermail/gossip-dev/attachments/20060809/375dd71d/attachment.pgp