From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Miles Bader Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: none Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:25:35 -0400 Sender: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org Message-ID: <20020910232535.GA12446@gnu.org> References: <874rcz2m8z.fsf@sachac.linuxboxen.org> <87it1faxav.fsf@emacswiki.org> <87sn0ity6h.fsf@sachac.linuxboxen.org> <87wupurlqw.fsf@sachac.linuxboxen.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: localhost.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: main.gmane.org 1031700453 17800 127.0.0.1 (10 Sep 2002 23:27:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@main.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 23:27:33 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Return-path: Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.224.244]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 17ouPr-0004cr-00 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 01:27:31 +0200 Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 17ov0V-000141-00 for ; Wed, 11 Sep 2002 02:05:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17ouPt-0001hU-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:27:33 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17ouO2-0001fW-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:25:38 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.10) id 17ouNz-0001fK-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:25:37 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([199.232.76.164]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.10) id 17ouNz-0001fE-00 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:25:35 -0400 Original-Received: from miles by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.10) id 17ouNz-0003cl-00; Tue, 10 Sep 2002 19:25:35 -0400 Original-To: Sacha Chua Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87wupurlqw.fsf@sachac.linuxboxen.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.28i Blat: Foop Errors-To: emacs-devel-admin@gnu.org X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Id: Emacs development discussions. List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:7827 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel:7827 On Tue, Sep 10, 2002 at 09:56:55PM +0800, Sacha Chua wrote: > Right now I'm studying textmenu and tmm, trying to figure out what > kind of a menu system I really want. I guess most people don't think > tmm is broken (it's actually quite nice), but I wonder if it can be > improved. I think tmm is `broken' too, because: (1) It operates differently from other menus so it's bound to confuse beginners. (2) Even once I got used to it a bit, I still found it very awkward to use: (a) Moving between menus and sub-menus (it just replaces the contents of the `menu buffer') is way too heavy-weight. A typical drop-down menu implementation allows you to quickly scan through submenus seeing what's there, while also preserving all the `parent context' for you to see. (b) The arrangement of menu items in the buffer seems often hard to read quickly. (c) I find the way the user-input (in the minibuffer) works annoying. I don't really like using completion when choosing from a small set of displayed items (because doing so requires me to stop and think about which key to type corresponds to which displayed), I'd rather just select directly from the list. You can scroll through the list in the minibuffer using direction keys, but the `disconnected' nature of it makes this awkward; it would be _much_ better to just manipulate a cursor in the displayed list directly (you can do this sort of by switching to the menu-window, but (1) that's an irritating extra step you have to take, and (2) moving between menu-items once you're there is still slow and clumsy [e.g., the huge initial comment that has to be skipped, the double-column arrangement of items] [I imagine that if you're using emacs-speak, BTW, you might disagree about some of this] (3) It's ugly as hell. Bleah. -Miles -- Occam's razor split hairs so well, I bought the whole argument!