button ordering (was Re: fd.o HIG)
dave at cridland.net
Tue Oct 26 12:10:38 EEST 2004
On Mon Oct 25 20:01:22 2004, Scott Wheeler wrote:
> On Monday 25 October 2004 20:45, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> > What could be more confusing than app that behaves one way in one
> > situation(desktop) and differently in another situation?
> I don't know, maybe say, having half of your applications using one
> button ordering and the other half using another? ;-)
> > It's entirely poor UI to have an application behave one way on
> one account > and a different way on another.
> Now, which is the more common case: a user switches desktops
> regularly using the same set of applications or a user uses one
> desktop with applications from different toolkits?
[Lots of snippage here]
Scott, I think you might have misread Sean's comments. I usually find
he's a lot more sensible than you appear to have taken him for, and I
read his comments quite differently.
Assuming I read him right, I can confidently state that I agree with
both of you.
1) The button ordering should be consistent across all applications,
regardless of toolkit, desktop library, etc. [Your argument]
2) This button ordering, while it might default to the user's
first-use desktop, should remain unchanged - at least by default -
when the user switches to a different desktop. [Sean's argument]
I think both are quite sensible arguments - you don't want to change
key parts of the UI implicitly because of another change to the
context it's run in. You change UI explicitly - when the user asks -
and you try to keep it consistent, but to change it as a side-effect
of something else is, indeed, very poor UI design.
To put it another way, I'd hazard a guess that most users would
assume that changing the desktop involved changing the Panel for the
Kicker, for instance. I don't think they'd assume that this would
involve switching the ordering of the most important buttons in every
dialog box. I think this change would be highly surprising, and I
hate to think what effect it would have on, say, my father-in-law,
who has sufficiently impaired vision that he may well not find the
More information about the xdg