On Monday 04 July 2005 01:23, Thierry de Coulon wrote:
> Users usually don't understand it, and since it's difficult (at least in
> the macs) to see what app the menu belongs to, they end up looking for menu
> points that are not available.
Macs problems need not be KDE's problems. Making active apps stand out from
the inactive apps is merely a question of implementation. We can have the
inactive apps fade a bit in to the background or something. And even on the
Mac, most users have zero problems with telling which app the menubar belongs
to, even with their less than perfect way of differentiating between active
and inactive apps. And even if that turned out to be a problem, the positive
points clearly outweight the negative points IMO.
> Please remember that 21% who want the mac os-style means 79% who don't, and
> that's a clear majority...
You didn't see the point I made? Many people voted against the idea. But when
they actually tried it themself, they actually liked it, for the reasons I
mentioned. So even though they voted against the idea in the beginning, they
actually preferred the Mac OS-style menubar after they had tested it
properly. I would say that most people opposed the idea simply because it's
different to the way it's done today. And the fact is that the per-app
menubars waste space, clutter the UI and are awkward to use.
Hell, I remember testing the Mac OS-menubar a while ago. And after 5 minutes
of use, I hated it. But I have experimented with OS X recently, and that
system forces me to use the menubar. And after a while, I really started to
appreciate it. then I tried it on KDE as well, and even though it has some
bugs on KDE, I use it all the time today. You really need to try it out
properly, before deciding that it sucks.
___________________________________________________
.
Account management: https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde.
Archives: http://lists.kde.org/.
More info: http://www.kde.org/faq.html.
