[Usability]Re: An alternative proposal for instant-apply vs. non-instant-apply

[Kenny Graunke <kenny whitecape org>]

<quote who="James R Eagan">

> On 07 Sep 2001 12:48:21 -0700, Kenny Graunke wrote:
> 
> It may the case that you don't need to worry about those users without
> close buttons on their windows, but that doesn't mean that one should
> eliminate the close buttons (whatever the label) from the dialog.  The
> vast majority of windows can be closed with a button on the window or
> with a pull-down menu.  The exceptions are so rare that whenever I
> encounter them, I find myself pondering for all of about 5 seconds
> before I remember the close button on the title bar.

Sure. I feel that [Close] buttons are pointless and ugly on instant apply
dialogs, but I'm sure not everyone agrees. I just mean that "We can't assume
users will be able to use a close button" cannot be considered a valid
argument against removing the [Close] button (often the only button!); if there
are other arguments for keeping them and the team eventually decides to do
so, then I'll live. I just want any decision to be based on decent reasons.

> The dialog ought to typically walk the user through a series of
> operations.  The button on the dialog is the user's way of communicating
> his intentions to the dialog ("no, i didn't mean to do that", or "I'm
> done now", or whatever).  Having the only way to exit that conversation
> being clicking on the close-box breaks the conversation away from the
> focus of the rest of the dialog.

You definately need buttons when you have a non-instant apply dialog, but
when Close is the only button, it looks funny to me, at least.

Perhaps not an ideal example (this isn't exactly a dialog, but...):
http://gnomeicu.sourceforge.net/images/shot_msgchat.png
That just looks weird. When I'm done, I'll close the window via the close
box. I guess in X the close box has been regarded as a "bad" thing to use
(not sure exactly why I felt this way, but that's the feeling I've had from
using it for a few years). Then I saw Window Maker, which didn't have a
[Close] button on at least one of its options dialogs. The only way to get
rid of it was to use the close button, and after that, I realized that it
really made sense to do it that way - that's what it's for, after all.

The close button is virtually always there, and will close a window. Not
every app has a [Close] button at the bottom, or a File->Close menu item -
hopefully they will, but this is pretty universally there for all
apps...every single non-Unix user I've seen uses this fairly exclusively.

> > If we cannot even assume such basic simple functionality, there is _NO WAY_
> > we will ever be able to succeed at creating a cohesive desktop usable by
> > the vast majority of the human population. I'm sorry, but at some point
> > these assumptions become absolutely ridiclous.
> 
> Assuming a close box may be a good assumption to make, but that doesn't
> mean its a good one to rely upon.
> 
> > > If we use this strategy with no buttons in instant-apply dialogs and
> > > only relying on WM buttons, a user can easily put himself in the
> > > position of an unusable desktop just by trying out some themes...
> > 
> > So they can figure out how to close the windows via some other way (a
> > keybinding, a right click menu on the titlebar, or ...). Or they can change
> > back to a theme that isn't so ridiculously broken.
> 
> I thought we were trying to make things easier to use....

We are. That sounds like making them go through a lot of work to figure out
how to close a window, but the only reason they have to do that is because
they have screwed themselves by not having a close button in the first place
- the default will most certainly have one, as do probably 90% of mainstream
window managers and themes out there.

> James

--Kenny