Re: suggestions on toolbar icons

["Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se>]

> "Jan D." <jan.h.d@swipnet.se> writes:
>
>>>     OPEN is what the action is, not FILE. Sometimes (without file
>>> dialog or
>>> the
>>>     Motif dialog), you can actually open directories with open.  So
>>> FILE
>>>     does not apply.
>
> Please, Jan, when replying to Outlook users, use the WYf command from
> gnus on their article.  This is not readable.

Sorry, I am not a gnus user.  But I'll see what I can do in the future.

>
>>>     It is not FILE, it is NEW we are using.  And should be using, as
>>> the
>>>     action is NEW as in new buffer, not FILE.  Again, it is possible 
>>> to
>>>     make a new buffer without any file with this under the right
>>> settings.
>>>
>>> Fine. How would I know which you use, without checking the code?
>>> FILE and
>>> NEW are _identical_ icons; they are both standard file icons.
>>
>> Why should you know?  The tooltip tells you what it does, that is all
>> any user wants to know.
>
> Disagree.  Tooltips are optional guides.  The user interface has to
> make sense of its own without explanation, or we could just make
> everything carry identical buttons.  Tooltips are nice for giving out
> some rationale, so that the user then can say "ah right, that was the
> logic behind it".  But they are an explanation, not a substitute for
> reason.

I may have misunderstood the question, but I was answering to "Given 
the fact that FILE and NEW are identical icons, how can I know if Emacs 
uses FILE or NEW?"  If the icon doesn't make sense, the tooltip is the 
guide, if they do, they both make sense, without the user having to 
know if it is FILE or NEW internally.

>
>>>     The previous version of Emacs used redo/undo, so we keep that.
>>>
>>> Legacy. Are we tied to legacy as well as to GNOME?
>
> I have to agree here with Drew.  "legacy" here is an explanation why
> something happens to be the way it is right now, not a reason why it
> should be kept that way.
>
>> Yes, we are slightly tied to legacy, but less so in this part than
>> for the rest part of Emacs.
>
> I don't see we are tied at all by legacy.  Emacs-21.4 had a working
> toolbar just on a single platform, and then it did not use GNOME-2
> icons.

Legacy in this context means it worked like this before so let's do the 
same.  This applies to the case where no suitable stock icon where 
found.

> Drew's criticism was probably worded stronger than necessary, and so
> you felt the need to get defensive.  There is no need either to be
> ashamed of what we did previously, nor to cling to it without
> necessity.

I did not mean to come off as opposed to all change, it is just that 
changing even one icon is a bit of work (scaling it, converting to xpm 
and xbm, testing on true color, pseudo color and black and white 
display), and changing just a few breaks the visual consistenct that 
the Gnome stock icons have, regardless if they are good or bad.  
However, I think the inclusion of the older gthumb icons as has been 
suggested is a good idea, we should do that regardless what Gnome 
replies to Lennart Borgmans mail.

>> Again, present a complete suggestion.  You are assuming somebody
>> else should figure out what this "something else" is.  That is not
>> going to happen, there are far more important things to work on.
>
> Yes, I think that would be a good idea.  Obviously Drew has invested
> some thoughts in it, and it would be nice if this lead to a coherent
> proposal we could then implement.
>
> And with a coherent proposal, it is also easier to explain to the
> GNOME artists why and what new and changed icons would be desirable
> and for what reason.

I have found it generally hard to change the minds of those in charge 
of Gnome (there was even something about that on slashdot a couple of 
days ago, so it is perhaps not me being unlucky).  But Borgmans 
suggestion is an addition, not a change so I think it stands a fair 
chance of being accepted.

	Jan D.