Warp wrote:
> the sake of change, just for the sake of making it look&feel *different*,
> in many cases at the cost of reduced usability.

Well, they *are* trying to make a profit. It's understandable, even if 
suboptimal. :-)

>   Well, MS had this "great" idea to change this behavior from clicking to
> hovering instead: 

Yah, I hate that too. Actually, I think there's a switch you can set to 
say don't do that, but I don't know if it disappears the menu if you 
move away after you click. I'll have to try that.

>   Speaking of context menus, that's another step backwards MS took:

Smalltalk did one better years earlier. Context menus not only open 
under the mouse, but position themself so that the previously chosen 
menu selection is under the cursor. If you're pasting the same thing 
into a dozen windows (because, say, you haven't yet automated 
broadcasting restarts to your server farm), you don't wind up with the 
mouse down in your lap before you're done.

>   Fortunately other systems have yet to copy the most braindead GUI ideas
> from MS. For example menus which change contents every time you use them.
> (I can't even begin to imagine how anyone could think that's a good idea.
> When MS wants to make changes just for the sake of changes, just to make
> a new Windows look different than the previous one, they will stop at
> nothing.)

Yah, well, that's for-fee software for ya. Gotta get people to buy the 
newer version, ya know.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message