Re: [Usability]sft+ctl+w v. ctl+q

[Wesley Leggette <wleggette gate net>]

Sometimes it doesn't really make much sense to have CTRL+SHFT+W when you
could have CTRL+Q, but it doesn't seem to hurt things. I think the
difference is clear, and sometimes users will want to be satisfied that
they are closing the entire application. 

Plus, this has utility in Mac OS X, where closing all windows does not
often (and in fact rarely) exit the application. Therefore, it's
probably worth keeping both close all windows and quit application. 

CTRL+W can be easily distinguished. Especially when using the file
manager (Nautilus in this case.) To further clarify, it might be useful
to have tabs be closed using ALT+W or CTRL+ALT+W. That way, multiple
window applications can still have bindings for closing both.

Wesley Leggette.


On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 18:54, Luis Villa wrote:
> On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 19:37, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-02-04 at 19:07, Luis Villa wrote:
> > > So, which is more correct- sft+ctl+w v. ctl+q? I've finally gotten used
> > > to ctl+q nearly everywhere, but nautilus and now epiphany are using
> > > shft+ctl+w. Do the usability people have an opinion? care one way or the
> > > other? As a lowly user, it is beginning to irritate me that something
> > > with effectively the same user-visible affect is different in some of
> > > the core apps. But maybe I'm talking out of place :)
> > 
> > Well, they are two different options, depending on point of view :
> > ctrl+q is Quit, shft+ctrl+w is Close All Windows.
> > 
> > >From a user perspective, this is kinda silly, since they are
> > (user-experience wise) the same thing.  I suppose *technically* tho,
> > they are different (since Nautilus still runs and draws the desktop even
> > if you close all windows, and Epiphany will[should] continue downloading
> > things you'ev asked to download even if all browser windows are closed).
> 
> 'Technically' is probably a dirty word. :) 
> 
> The argument that Dave and I just tied up (more or less) came down
> (partially) to 'users know the desktop is part of the file manager, so
> they'll fear ctl+q because they'll think it'll make the files on their
> background go away.' I don't think most do though- I think that's a
> remnant from the dark days when we said 'sure, use gmc or nautilus or
> nothing at all.' I have no idea what kind of user test one could conduct
> to figure out which of us is right, though.
> 
> > Perhaps, from a user perspetive again, it should be the Close All
> > Windows keybinding; from what I've gathered, it's prefered to think of
> > an application from a document view.  I.e., you don't quite Gnumeric,
> > you close documents, until you're out of documents (or close all
> > documents at once).  Of course, then, ctrl+shft+w is a silly keybinding,
> > since that is implying Window, not Document, and one could argue that is
> > wrong, since you could have many Windows open for a single Document (a
> > la le Gimp).  But now I'm rambling...
> 
> Well, after a spirited office argument... from a more
> document-centric-POV, why not ctl+w only everywhere? This gets messy,
> though, for experienced users. 
> 
> thinking aloud myself, too.
> 
> FWIW, I think fixing this 'only' in epiphany/galeon/nautilus sucks- the
> UI team should probably figure this out more clearly and settle it
> everywhere. But that may be a different battle. :)
> 
> Luis
> 
> > > 
> > > Luis
> > > 
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Usability mailing list
> > > Usability gnome org
> > > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Usability mailing list
> > Usability gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
-- 
Wesley Leggette <wleggette gate net>