Re: Search from location bar

Hi Stephen,

On 11/29/11, Stephen Paul Weber <singpolyma-BBL/675DSF9HD/0T1/[email protected]> wrote:
> Why are you proposing that the rc file be so complicated?  It takes less
> than 15 minutes to read through every single available option in the current
> dillorc.

I'm saying that the rc file is complicated because it is.  Most people
don't have the time to read through every single available option in
an rc file, if they even know where to find it.

Remember we're the minority on dillo-dev.  We're more technically
inclined than the average user; we're used to rc files, and we have
enough interest (and time!) to do things the long way.  But Joe
Sixpack doesn't have time to read through a long text file to find a
configuration option; he just needs a button he can click so he can
change the setting and get back to his real work.

> New users (in my experience) cannot find such buttons.  Mostly because they
> assume anything their program doesn't already do is "hard".  So they call me
> and then I have to find the button.
>
> Not that I'm saying there should not be a button, but I think the idea that
> GUI configuration panes are "newb friendly" is a bit of wishful thinking.

They aren't perfect, and I'm not claiming they are.  But they're
certainly an improvement.  And if worst comes to worst, it's still
easier to tell someone where to find a button to click than it is to
explain the intricacies of a configuration file.

GUIs are also more convenient, even for experienced users: rather than
hunting through an rc file, you can just click a couple buttons, and
you don't even have to restart the browser.  For instance, I just used
mine to change my user agent, since my university now apparently uses
UA sniffing to throttle bandwidth.

By the way, I have a GUI coded, but as with all my past contributions,
it has consistently been silently ignored.  But my own users seem
quite happy with it -- at least the ones who realize it was my
addition and have written to me about it -- so their loss, I suppose.

>>"Darken white backgrounds" is better, because it recognizes this implied
>>norm.  The word "darken" also states a clear action, unlike -- for example
>>-- "disallow."  A user should never have to stop and think, "What does
>>'Disallow white backgrounds' mean?" if there's a more obvious way to word
>>it.
>
> I agree with this.  Maybe even change it to a setting for *how much* to
> darken.  Maybe.

"How much" is already determined by the bg_color option, so I see no
need for a separate option.

Personally, I *don't* think they should change the option name,
because it would break backwards compatibility with previous versions.
 It's important to make things easy for new users, but it's just as
important not to alienate existing users.  That's why I won't upgrade
Microsoft Office or The GIMP; both have redesigned so much I can't
figure out how to work the latest versions.

But you can still have a "Darken white backgrounds" GUI option while
coding it internally as allow_white_bg=NO, as I have done.  (My
interface also sets bg_color appropriately either to white or tan.)
That, I think, is an appropriate compromise, since you're breaking
neither the existing code nor the poor user's brain.

Cheers,
~Benjamin