On Friday 05 January 2007 15:21, Andy Green wrote: > Anne Wilson wrote: > >> Yes, that's the point. For a lot of things, software should work > >> like an appliance. If the thing that needs to be done can be > >> predicted, just do it without offering any choices. > > > > <scream.......> Where have I seen that idea? Oh yes, in systems that I > > won't use. > > Well, you use lightswitches presumably. It is a good idea, but only if > the device is understood to do one simple thing you can explain to > someone that never saw it before in a handful of words. If what it does > is inherently complex, don't try shoehorn it into lightswitch semantics > (ye height-challenged people are you listening). > Not the same thing at all. Where the only options are on/off you can *only* reverse the current state. I wouldn't want the switch to be making the decision for me as to whether I actually wanted to do that or leave it alone <g> Where there is only one course of action - e.g. exit or no exit - then maybe you don't need any dialogue box. Where there is the option to exit after saving or exit without saving I definitely want to be the one to choose. *I* want to decide whether the change that caused the question to be asked is significant or not. Anne
Attachment:
pgpW5q9nxU9lO.pgp
Description: PGP signature
