Re: Enter the build sheriff: Jacob.
- From: David Bordoley <bordoley msu edu>
- To: Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>
- Cc: Alan Cox <alan redhat com>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, veillard redhat com, gnome-hackers gnome org, desktop-devel-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Enter the build sheriff: Jacob.
- Date: 14 Mar 2002 20:34:56 -0500
Seth,
Is the logout dialog going to be fixed as well. I have a bug,72602,
which proposes a logout dialog similar to the winXP logout dialog. This
is possibly the only thing i like in WinXP :) Would love your info.
dave
On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 20:23, Seth Nickell wrote:
> We don't use "yes/no" or "no/yes". I suspect that will bother you too,
> but if that is the case, please address that issue rather than knocking
> down straw men. "no/yes" is very awkward and would be a big strike
> against the G2 button ordering. But we strongly recommend against using
> dialogues with "yes", "no" buttons. So in compliant applications this
> situation should not occur.
>
> The loose principal behind this is that dialogues represent actions, and
> it is better to phrase them in an active form, rather than as a
> conversational interface. Thus figuratively the user performs the
> action, rather than consenting to an action the computer performs.
>
> (there are still a number of "no/yes" dialogues in GNOME2, particularly
> in gnome games, there just wasn't enough time to convert all of them,
> but I think the important dialogues have been converted)
>
> This contains a theoretical justification for the G2 button order:
> http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2002-February/msg00317.html
>
> This contains the relevant results of a rather informal user test that
> at least provides some "user testing evidence":
> http://lists.gnome.org/archives/gnome-list/2002-February/msg00328.html
>
> -seth
>
> On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 09:27, Alan Cox wrote:
> > > When we can't afford the testing, we have to go with prior art and
> > > research and general principles based on those, and that is 100% the
> > > right approach.
> >
> > Prior art without understanding which bits are good or caused by 20 year
> > old lawsuits ? Oh dear me.
> >
> > > The problem is that the fastest way to accomodate traditional users is
> > > usually to add a configuration option. That's the trap we have to
> > > avoid at all costs, in favor of fixing the defaults to address the
> > > root issues.
> >
> > Broken is still broken. When was the last time you read in a newspaper
> > about someone being asked a no/yes question ?
> >
> > Let me quote google
> >
> > yes/no 2.3 million hits (a lot are yes,no,no things
> > no/yes 640,000 hits on both of these due to google)
> >
> > "yes or no" 441,000
> > "no or yes" 4870
> >
> > Begin to get the picture ?
> >
> > 441,000 web page authors know the right ordering.
> >
> > Alan
> >
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]