No no no. Everybody is wrong. What we need is: [ Actually, now that I come to think about it, this is not the action I would like to take at this time. Thankyou all the same] [ This is precisely the action that I require, and I thank you for the explicit dialog and verbose text in the buttons; it really makes sure I know what it about to happen, and possibly makes the rest of the text of the dialog redundant, but hey, at least there is zero scope for confusion] Dan On Sun, Aug 9, 2015 at 11:45 AM, Paul Davis <paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 8, 2015 at 8:41 PM, Allin Cottrell <cottrell@xxxxxxx> wrote: > >> However, in relation to Igor's original point, giving the user options of >> Yes/No is IMO fine if your dialog asks a short, simple question that >> requires an answer of Yes or No. As in >> >> Overwrite <filename>? Yes/No >> Send message? Yes/No >> Really delete X? Yes/No >> >> One could rephrase these messages as something other than Yes/No questions >> but would that actually be clearer? I doubt it. > > I think you're wrong. Each one of these can be converted into a dialog > of the following general form: > > Need confirmation to carry out potentially significant action > > [ Do not take this action ] [ Take this action ] > > > A specific case may help > > > Overwriting this file may cause data loss > > [ Do not overwrite the file ] [ Overwrite the file ] > > > or > > Once your message is sent, you cannot delete it. > > [ Do not send this message] [ Send this message] > > > Both these examples are clearer, because they explain what is at stake. > _______________________________________________ > gtk-list mailing list > gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx > https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list _______________________________________________ gtk-list mailing list gtk-list@xxxxxxxxx https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gtk-list
