Re: Debian menus policy
LarstiQ wrote:
> Well, what Brian Nelson wrote touches the issue I believe. It is nice
> (or even productive) to match the thought processes of a user, which
> might be hard without some research. This is nicely shown by the
> differences between how Thomas Hood would like a menu, and how for
> example you like one.
Right. I should have made that point clearly in my response to Brian,
that I don't believe that the sequence "editing->text->emacs" matches
the way most people will think as well as "text->editor->emacs" will. My
disagreement isn't that I don't want the menus to relate naturally to
the way users think!
> I myself usually know what I am going to do, so I
> think along the lines medium->action->... (on the topic of media, Games
> can be viewed to operate on users (the amount of relaxation ?)).
Right. So it sounds like your preference is similar to mine.
[Speaking of alternate menu structures:]
> Why stop at two dimensions ? Why the hierarchy as it is now ? One could
> make use of menus like in high end modellers (Maya for example), where
> the menus expand in all directions from the current entry, and the menus
> grouped in such a way that the user operates at optimal performance. And
> that is why those suites cost a hell of a lot more than Povray or
> Blender or any other gratis/cheap suite.
Yes, I was intentionally keeping my example simple by limiting it to the
two views that have been under discussion in this thread. But in
principle, of course, you're right, there could be many dimensions, many
different ways of looking at the system.
Craig
Reply to: