On 4 May 2004, Sven Neumann wrote: > Hi, > > "Branko Collin" <collin@xxxxxxxxx> writes: > > > By abbreviating 'Scale Y:' to 'Y:', you are forcing the user to make > > an extra mental transaction, namely to first read the 'Scale X:' > > label, which only is partially related to what the 'Scale Y:' control > > does. > > It works the other way around. If Scale is duplicated the user first > need to recognize that both controls have the same label. She needs to > read both labels and realize that they are the same. With the current > layout the group of controls is labelled "Scale" and then there's an > "X" and an "Y" label for the individual controls. Fortunately, the human visual system has excellent pattern detection hardware, and so that's not much of a challenge. That is why so much gimp code is written in the style of: GimpFoo *foo = gimp_foo_new (bar); GimpFoo *quux = gimp_foo_new (baz); int cnt = gimp_foo_count (foo, bar); So that similar things are lined up, easing the task of comparing and contrasting the three lines. The similar words are actually noticed in an earlier stage of processing than the actual charactor recognition and parsing stages. In fact, it takes less work to use the visual similarity in the consistantly labeled example as a clue that the two entry controls are related than it does to use the visual disimilarity in the inconsistantly labeled example as a clue that the two entry controls are related. Rockwalrus
