Re: 2 UI comments on the Alpha Sneak Preview
[email protected] (Ned Baldessin) Wed, 24 Sep 2003 10:14:26 +0200
| Newsgroups | gmane.editors.bitflux.devel |
|---|---|
| Organization | IDSland |
| Message-ID | <1g1sbee.smqj6r4yk0jkM%[email protected]> |
> It is quite streamlined, yes, but still too much for the casual case and > a lot of users (not the usual geek) find even this still scary ;) Or if > you do a large deployement, you don't want to have to install BXE on > every seat. Or if your outside of your normal workspace and want to do a > quick edit on some of your content. Well, one requisite for BXE is to have a Mozilla-based browser installed. In my experience over here in france, the only major institution that complies to that is the ministry of agriculture (!). The point is : when asked, people don't seem put off by installing a new browser, so I don't think that adding a second step (the xpi) would make much of a difference. I agree that it's an inconveniance, but probably not a big one. > There is no argument against doing it as XPI and doing it in XUL, but I > think the alternative (working without the need of an installation > process) should also be possible, maybe with less features, but it has > to work. Otherwise it's too complicated Hum, current version + remote XUL version + XPI version, that sounds extra-fluffy. Actually, my major «complaint» with the current toolbar is that is overlaps on the page. Off the top of my head : why not set the <body> top padding to the height of the toolbar ? -- bx-editor-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.bitflux.ch/cgi-bin/listinfo/bx-editor-dev