Re: Debian menus policy
Thomas Hood wrote:
> But programs that are data-oriented also have functions, and
> so belong in the function-oriented tree too. I don't see any
> reason why a program should not appear in multiple places in
> the menu hierarchy. A program might even appear multiple times
> in one of the two trees---if it has several functions or if
> it operates on several kinds of object.
But then you have a much larger tree. I think one of the goals of the
menu design, considering how many programs people can have on their
machines, is to keep the tree fairly minimal. You want everything to be
in the tree, but if many things are in the tree more than once, the tree
gets too big. Also, less-sophisticated users will find it confusing;
they'll wonder if the A in editing->text is the same A that is in
text->editors, and they'll bombard debian-user with questions about why
things are duplicated.
> What is most important is that it appear in at least one place; and it
> will be a convenience to the user if s/he knows that every program
> appears at least in the function-oriented tree.
Not really. What's important is that the items appear in the most
intuitive place, or that there is enough information in the menu data,
and enough flexibility in the menu code, that the user can choose to
view things according to the criteria that are most important to him.
> Returning to the question of the connection with package
> classification, what we might do is add new tags to the
> package description for function and object type which would
> have the same permissible set of values as there are menu
> titles. Thus a network-enabled text editor would appear
> under Apps_by_function|Editors|Text and under
> Apps_by_object|Text|Editors and the package would have the
> tags "Functions: editor" and "Objects: text". We could
> then get debhelper to set up menu entries for us. How 'bout
> that?
That's the basic idea, I think, though whether both trees are visible
at once, or you choose which one to display, or something even more
sophisticated than that, remains to be determined.
Craig
Reply to: