Re: To answer your question about the upcoming Style-Guide...

["Dan Kaminsky" <effugas best com>]

>how much real-estate do I waste by putting, e.g., four menus/folders on the
>panel instead of one? I honestly think I waste ZERO screen, because the
>space they use up is taken by the panel anyways.


There are better things to place in the gnome bar.  <cackles>

Seriously, I should have mockups done by tommorow of a signfiicantly more
efficient usage of the Gnome bar.

>I want this because I have SEEN that people will not even realize they can
>customize it this way if it works like windoze from the start. it
absolutely
>IS necessary to SHOW them that it's possible. please try this yourself. put
>someone who has never seen gnome before in front of it. don't say a word,
>don't interfere, just watch them.


Fine, one or two apps(Netscape?  Midnight Commander?) should occupy the
Gnome bar as well, but *damn* the icons need to be smaller.  Sucks to say it
but Microsoft got it completely right in 98.

>
>> start->apps>pagemaker is the best choice of all.
>for whom? for everyone? I doubt that. if I use my machine for pagemaker 70%
>of the time, I would like to start it with a SINGLE click. but I would not
>want the civ2 scenario editor waste space on the panel. other people could
>want it the other way around.
>they should not only be able to have it whatever way they want, they also
>have to KNOW that it's possible.


Nice little thing about documentation not being read.  Actually, the only
way users will find out they can MOVE stuff into the Gnome bar is:

1)  Watch the screen play
2)  The gnome bar gets a recently loaded app section clearly delineated from
the rest of the pack.  The interface should self-doc enough to suggest
moving an app from recent to always available.

>
>> Well, we're talking about defaults here,
>correct.
>
>> I think you'll see that it's more efficient to just sort the gnomeprint
by
>> app category rather than splitting the gnomeprint up.
>no, sorry. I don't see that, it's not evident. it's again a
>single-point-of-reference philosophy. take a look into "real life". there
is
>no equivalent to this anywhere. it's not in the experience of the people.


Want a web browser?  Turn on the computer.  Want a word processor?  Turn on
the computer.

Want to go to the store?  Go downtown.  Want to go to the office?  Go
downtown.  Want to go get some dinner?  Go downtown.

>> >why not? I have a calender/clock and a network-up/down display in my
>> >afterstep wharf currently. both are dynamic information. I do not see
any
>> >problems putting both types on the same bar.
>> Misunderstanding.  App windows are windows that you click to load up an
app,
>> or to bring up all apps of a given category.
>nothing stops us from allowing dynamic icons to start apps or open folders,
>does it? cde has a few examples of this (clicking on the clock/calender
>opens the calender app. now THAT is intuitive, isn't it?).


In general we don't have situations like this.

>
>> >aside from the fact that I'm not on friendly terms with aquinas, this is
>> >about rebellion WHEN IT'S RIGHT. my point was explicitly that if it
makes
>> >sense, if it works better, we shouldn't care that everyone else does it
>> >otherwise.
>> However, we've gotta prove that it works better.  If somebody else chokes
on
>> a burger because they're not smart enough to chew before they swallow,
>> doesn't mean we should avoid burgers.
>true. that's why I again propose you put people who don't know gnome in
>front of it and simply watch what they do. it's quite enlightening.


True.