Re: suggestions on toolbar icons

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

> I won't belabor this, but I do have a few responses. Your reply is, in
> essence, "GNOOOOMMME" (shades of Allen Ginsberg w/ "Oommmm"). If 
> GNOME's
> choices are not always the best, we will nevertheless live with it.

No,they are not always the best, far from it.  But there is a point in 
aligning with them.

>
>>  - Folder (for "file): This is _not_ good. A folder icon is used
>>    ubiquitously for, well, a folder - that is, a directory.
>
>     You are talking Microsoft products here I guess.  This is the Gnome
>     stock open icon, I see no advantage to adopt a different set of
>     guidelines different from Gnome where the folder icon is not at 
> all is
>     ubiquitously used for directory. Check out any Gnome application.
>
>>  - Directory (Dired):
>>    Suggestion: Use a regular folder icon. Duh?
>
> GTK_STOCK_DIRECTORY _is_ a standard folder icon. This _agrees_ with my
> suggestion (not at all Microsoftesque) that a standard folder icon 
> should be
> used for Dired. If you think advocating that a folder icon be used to
> represent a folder editor implies advocating adopting Microsoft 
> conventions,
> then I would suggest that you are overly zealous in your struggle. 
> Oommmm.

I don't have any "struggle".  I'm just pointing out that Gnome should 
have higher priority than any other desktop, be it KDE, OSX or 
whatever.  GTK_STOCK_OPEN and GTK_STOCK_DIRECTORY are confusingly 
similar (did I just say that Gnome isn't always the best?).  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.


>
> Similarly, GTK_STOCK_FILE is a standard file icon. This _agrees_ with 
> my
> suggestion to keep this icon.

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.

>
> The question then is, what about new-file vs existing-file? I suggested
> using something similar for both of these. GTK_STOCK_NEW is in fact
> _identical_ to GTK_STOCK_FILE, showing that GNOME and I think alike on 
> this
> one.
>
> Emacs, however, currently uses the _directory_ icon, 
> GTK_STOCK_DIRECTORY for
> opening an existing file - it happens that this icon is identical to
> GTK_STOCK_OPEN. Using a folder to represent opening a _file_ flies in 
> the
> face of every UI I've ever seen. Are you sure that GTK_STOCK_OPEN is
> intended for files, not for directories? Does using it for opening a 
> file
> make sense to you?

Check out any Gnome application, it is the most common icon (as is 
OPEN), it is indeed used for opening existing files.  We did not put 
this in Emacs on a hunch.

>
> Finally, if you are going to use GNOME as a litmus test, then why not 
> be
> consistent and use GTK_STOCK_GOTO_TOP instead of GTK_STOCK_HOME for 
> Info's
> Top? Likewise, why not use GTK_STOCK_GO_BACK for Back (which is, 
> presumably,
> chronological) - as in Web browsers? Why use the GNOME undo/redo icon
> (GTK_STOCK_REDO) for Back and Forward? I suspect that we are already
> departing dangerously from the GNOME Oommmmm. It's a slippery slope...

HOME was used because previous Emacs versions use HOME from GTK 1.x.    
BACK is used in info, I presume that is what you mean.  Are you 
suggesting BACK for two actions?  The previous version of Emacs used 
redo/undo, so we keep that.  As you pointed out, there are icons 
missing.

>
>     The Gnome stock quit could be used in info to quit, it is an arrow
>     pointing to an open door.
>
> Yes, that's better, although the icon is ambiguous (entering or 
> exiting?)
> and is not very clear (the door is hard to distinguish). I prefer the
> international exit sign - the one you look for when there's a fire.

Make that icon, so we can see what it looks like.

>
>>  - Tooltip for quit/exit:
>>    Suggestion: Use "Quit buffer", or "Delete buffer" instead of
>>    "Discard current buffer". I prefer "Quit buffer".
>
>     But "Quit Buffer" is not clear, it could mean the same as "Quit 
> Info"
>     i.e. leaving the buffer intact, just switching to another buffer.
>
> "Quit" is clearer (and more common) than "discard". At this level, the
> distinction between leaving the buffer intact and killing it is not
> important - and "discard" doesn't help with this distinction anyway.

It is very important.  It is a great difference between just burying a 
buffer and discarding it.

	Jan D.