Re: Accelerator key inconsistencies

On Wed, 2006-08-09 at 15:36 +0200, CJ van den Berg wrote:
> [snip]
> 
> On Wed, Aug 09, 2006 at 01:56:43PM +0100, Martyn Russell wrote:
> > In Gossip, Ctrl+W closes a tab.
> > In GIMP, Ctrl+W closes a window (showing an image).
> > 
> > The correlation here is that they close a "document" or "instance", what
> > ever you want to call it. Ctrl+W is not used anywhere else in GIMP or
> > Gossip (iirc).
> 
> And how is the roster *not* a document? If I can edit it, it's a document as
> far as I'm concerned.

So the preferences are a document too because you can edit them?

So is GIMP broken in your opinion then?

> > > > The difference between close and hide is measured by the functionality
> > > > that the application provides. For example, I would expect the
> > > > difference between hide and close for the chat window to be almost
> > > > non-existant. But for the roster window, I would expect that difference
> > > > to be, hide the window and close the application.
> > > 
> > > Please, *I* understand this, and *you* understand this, but it just doesn't
> > > make any sense to a normal user. Please show me just *one* other window on
> > > the GNOME desktop that has a hidden state and a closed state and the
> > > differentiates between the two in the UI.
> > 
> > Skype does the exact same thing EXCEPT it doesn't have an option in the
> > UI to toggle this behaviour, it is hidden, you can only do this by
> > clicking of the notification area icon. The only difference is we
> > provide an option visually in the roster window menu and notification
> > icon menu.
> 
> The skype application does *not* exit if you close the roster window.
> Neither does Ekiga, Gaim, Gajim, Psi or Kopete.

PSI does actually.

> So for all of them, close == hide.

Yea yea yea, there was a discussion about this waaay back. So I guess we
are inconsistent here too. Oh well.

> > Users that see the main menu as:
> > 
> > Hide Roster
> > ---
> > Quit
> > 
> > Are NOT going to be confused by that are they, especially when other i'm
> > clients have same or similar behaviour.
> 
> "Other" clients apparently *don't* have similar behaviour.

I don't really give a shit if they do in this case.

> If you want to leave it the way it is, that's fine with me. I didn't really
> want to get on a soap box about this. 

Is someone forcing you to open your mouth?

> The fact that it is inconsistent
> stands though (IMHO).

So what?

-- 
Regards,
Martyn