On 27-1-2011 3:56, Darren New wrote:
> andrel wrote:
>> Nope, I said I understand why these options are needed, but they
>> should not be visible when inappropriate.
>
> They're not. You have to click on the button that says "show me these
> options." At least in Vista.

Hmm, I checked, I actually have Vista Machine here. totally for got that 
I did not put XP on it even after finding out that some things did not 
work anymore. Found my ways around it, bought a few new things and 
forgot the frustration.

And to answer your remark: no, the whole list of options is available as 
a popup menu in the lower right. Next to the power of en the lock icon. 
Where the power of icon according to the tooltip text does something 
different from what I selected from the configuration menu. But that 
might be because that only handles the physical button? I am not going 
to press the buttons just to see what they do ATM. I rather have MS tell 
me what is selected now.

>> With at least in XP not a logical interface to change that. Right
>> clicking the buttin brings up a menu, with one item: properties.
>> Of the taskbar, not the button. ??
>
> That's a fair point. Right-clicking on the actual power button should
> take you to the appropriate page of the power control panel thingie.

Why put it in the power management control in the first place? Two 
mostly unrelated things, at least as they designed it. You could 
integrate some of the concepts, but as far as I can see they failed even 
at that. So, put it under a different heading if you can not be bothered 
to think.

>> That is the one that should not be visible or at least not in this
>> format.
>
> I don't understand why. Where would you put it? Does it confuse you? Do
> you not know what those words mean?

I know what these words mean... In the real life context. With my 
computer I am not always sure. And as I said a few times before, the 
Dutch translation suggests different things than the English which adds 
to the confusion. But the main thing is that if you have someone new to 
the OS who is of an inquisitive mind, you have to spend 5-15 minutes 
explaining a lot of concepts as shortcuts for combinations of actions. 
(assuming you fully understand them yourself, otherwise you simply add 
to the confusion). Please give them (and me) just those combinations and 
get rid of the useless metaphors.
A minor complaint is that if you accidentally move your mouse when 
selecting from the menu, it may take a few minutes to correct that, as 
you can not interrupt a shutdown. (my god am I glad that most programs 
now refuse to get killed if there is some unsaved data. When e.g. 
blender didn't yet, I have lost hours of work by accidentally moving my 
mouse when trying to put the machine to sleep while I was off to a meeting).

>>> Joel is arguing this could be turned into one button. I disagree.
>>
>> me to.
>
> I'm not sure how you put six or seven options onto one button.

You don't. You put the most commonly used one under the button and allow 
easy temporary overrides. Right click on the button.
(ok, probably 2 buttons, one for going to the toilet or a meeting and 
one for going home).

>>> I hate to say it, but cars have both ignition keys, door locks, *and*
>>> brake pedals (heck, *two* brake pedals!). I haven't heard anyone
>>> complaining about that.
>>
>> Why would they? Different physical objects with a clear interface.
>
> And you have different buttons on the screen to do different things with
> your PC, yet Joel is complaining he has too many buttons.

He is complaining about the interface, just as I do, because it is 
horrible and probably designed by an intern from a school for mentally 
disabled people.
I am not sure if he wants just to clean up the interface or also change 
the possible options. If the latter I disagree, but I fully support him 
for the former.

About the car: there are historical reasons for this interface. It is a 
kludge but I understand where it comes from. If you design something new 
there really is no excuse for this mess. Simply the fact that I had to 
look up lost of things during this discussion (and am still unclear 
about some details) is a clear sign that it is not designed 
consistently. I am a physicist, I cannot remember facts, but I won't 
forget something that I understand.

Post a reply to this message