Re: suggestions on toolbar icons

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

"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.

>>     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.

>>     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.

There is absolutely no reason to invoke "legacy" here.  We have
significantly reordered the menus which is a much larger step than
using appropriate icons.

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.

You have expressed your view that it is a good idea to go with the
flow of GNOME in general with regard to the icons, and I agree with
that.  Drew's suggestions in that context make sense, even when they
were worded in an unfortunate way.

It is not like I don't have a history of that affliction myself...

> 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.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum