Re: [Usability] HIG Clarification for "Close Without Saving" button

[Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org>]

Am Dienstag, den 01.02.2005, 22:52 +0000 schrieb Alan Horkan:
> On Wed, 2 Feb 2005, Kai Willadsen wrote:
> 
> > Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2005 07:49:53 +1000
> > From: Kai Willadsen <kaiw itee uq edu au>
> > To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> > Cc: usability gnome org
> > Subject: Re: [Usability] HIG Clarification for "Close Without Saving"
> >     button
> >
> > On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 16:54 +0000, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > > [removed the CC's]
> > >
> > > On Tue, 1 Feb 2005 danilo gnome org wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I'll answer on this one.  It would make sense to have "Discard",
> > > > "Save", "Cancel" if the question was "There are some unsaved changes
> > > > in this document.  What do you want to do with these changes?"
> > > >
> > > > I.e. it must be clear that "Discard" or "Save" is about _changes_,
> > > > whereas "Cancel" is about the action of closing.
> 
> 
> > > I think that Discard is much stronger language than "Close without Saving"
> > > and users might be more likely to consider it something they probably dont
> > > want to do.
> >
> > The problem with "Discard" is that as a verb in a dialog in a document-
> > based application, it should apply to the document, and it doesn't.
> > You're not asking whether the user wants to discard the document, just
> > whether they want to discard the changes, which isn't apparent unless
> > you read the whole dialog text.
> 
> Very good point.
> 
> I still think this is the least worst option.
> 
> I have been known to value consistancy more than most people though, so
> there's my bias clear as crystal.  I think on the basis of a cross desktop
> consistancy alone I should probably go forward and try and get my
> GTK_STOCK_DISCARD added.  At least then those who want consistancy can set
> it.

Would you be ok with adding GTK_STOCK_DISCARD as well as
GTK_STOCK_DISCARD_CHANGES?

-- 
Christian Neumair <chris gnome-de org>