From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: "Drew Adams" Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: New start up splash screen annoyance... Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:45:18 -0700 Message-ID: References: <86abra4kf6.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1190749558 14745 80.91.229.12 (25 Sep 2007 19:45:58 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 25 Sep 2007 19:45:58 +0000 (UTC) Cc: rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: "David Kastrup" Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Sep 25 21:45:53 2007 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1IaGLc-0002Ji-MI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 21:45:32 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGLZ-0007ua-KI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:45:29 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGLV-0007qy-5W for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:45:25 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGLT-0007od-C1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:45:24 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IaGLT-0007oW-96 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:45:23 -0400 Original-Received: from rgminet01.oracle.com ([148.87.113.118]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1IaGLK-0005rX-Vq; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 15:45:15 -0400 Original-Received: from rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (rgmgw2.us.oracle.com [138.1.186.111]) by rgminet01.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.1.6) with ESMTP id l8PJjCqU013945; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:45:12 -0600 Original-Received: from acsmt350.oracle.com (acsmt350.oracle.com [141.146.40.150]) by rgmgw2.us.oracle.com (Switch-3.2.4/Switch-3.2.4) with ESMTP id l8P638gl017545; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 13:45:11 -0600 Original-Received: from dhcp-amer-csvpn-gw1-141-144-64-198.vpn.oracle.com by acsmt350.oracle.com with ESMTP id 3243790661190749494; Tue, 25 Sep 2007 12:44:54 -0700 X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) In-Reply-To: <86abra4kf6.fsf@lola.quinscape.zz> Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Brightmail-Tracker: AAAAAQAAAAI= X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Whitelist: TRUE X-Detected-Kernel: Linux 2.4-2.6 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:79845 Archived-At: > I don't think I would try out a button called "delete" if I don't have > a clue just what it will delete. "remove" is better here than "delete", BTW, for just that reason. But the point is that you can only do so much in a tooltip, and to try to do more than what it is designed for defeats the purpose. Sure, it's a judgment call. If you think it is very important to mention "window", then do so. But adding padding such as "this window of the frame" is counterproductive. It confuses more that it helps (Why "this"? Is it trying to tell me something about some other window too? Why "of the frame"? Is there some window I should worry about that is not in the frame? Is there some other frame that is involved here?) If we don't pay attention to this, soon we will have text such as "This window of the frame, which is just above the place where you just clicked with your mouse just now." And perhaps we'll start explaining what a frame is and the difference between Emacs windows and window-manager windows, to avoid confusion by newbies. > >> > Why would it need to say "For this window of the frame"? If it is > >> > not clear enough without that context explanation, then there is > >> > something wrong with the UI beyond just the tooltip text. > >> > >> The mode line is not the same as the window. "This window of the > >> frame" makes clear that we are not talking about the window > >> system's definition of a window, but about something that is nested > >> within frames. > > > > Really not necessary. > > > > "This window of the frame": "of the frame" is 100% useless, as is > > "this". > > If one knows the Emacs terminology by heart. See above - will you explain windows and frames in every tooltip that involves either? Does what you wrote actually explain anything about windows and frames? I think it only adds confusion. > > If we stop making an effort to keep tooltips short, thinking that we > > need to add padding such as this, then our tooltips will soon become > > Victorian novels. > > The first line is shorter than the second one. Further shortening it > will actually worsen the visual appearance, so there is no point in > omitting helpful content. The content I spoke of is not helpful. It is 100% fluff. It adds only confusion. > > A mode-line is tied to its window and buffer. Though a mode-line can > > contain text that is unrelated to the window/buffer, most of its > > text is usually related. > > Tooltips are not primarily for seasoned users. And? Does your additional text actually help unseasoned users? I don't think so. If the extra padding does anything at all, it adds confusion, IMO. > >> By the way: this tooltip (however many lines it takes) should > >> absolutely not get displayed when there is only one window in the > >> frame: it will only confuse the user since all announced operations > >> are noops and there is no difference between window and frame. > > > > We do agree about that. > > Well, at least some common point. Apart from the first letter of our > name, I doubt we will find many more. I guess I have said most of > what I have to say about this matter. If you do what is needed to > feel the same, we can just let the others possibly chime in and let > Richard sort out the mess with a decision. > > Or something. OK. We've each made our point.