kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@...>]

Geoff,

I think code maintainability trumps any benefits of a so called platform 
standard with respect to button sequence. The code complexity required 
to make platform specific button sequences is not worth it.


The next highest weighted decision factor in my mind is always "which 
button will be used most", and I tend to put that where it is most 
visible and try and make it respond should the user press "ENTER".


The next highest weighted decision factor should be consistency within 
the application suite (but not within the collection of other programs 
on that platform).


I think the other UIpolicy.txt issues are far more important than button 
display sequence. But again, consistency within the kicad application 
suite can come for free.

Use your best judgment on this, and stay consistent, but I would not 
introduce the code complexity of platform specific button sequences, 
even if it is a single #ifdef
Once you find something you like and has gained some mileage from other 
users, you can list it in the UIpolicy.txt file.


Opining,

Dick


> Something which I think should be discussed is the sequence of the 
> "OK" and "Cancel" buttons (within dialog boxes) within different 
> versions of KiCad.
>
>
>
> The Gnome standard indicates that the "Cancel" button should be 
> located to the left of the "OK" button - but that is the opposite 
> sequence to what is customary under Windows.
>
>
>
> Hence I suggest that it would be desirable to be able to specify 
> different sequences for those buttons within different versions of KiCad.
>
>
>
> So that raises these questions:
>
>
>
> - What is the preferred sequence for the Mac version?
>
>
>
> - Is the Gnome standard also preferred with other desktops (is that 
> the correct terminology?) which can be used with Linux? For instance, 
> with KDE and X Windows?
>
>
>
> And while there are not that many dialogs which also provide an 
> "Apply" button, there still are some (which I have provided in some 
> cases when the previous implementation of each of the dialogs 
> concerned updated the display on the screen before the dialog 
> concerned had been closed).
>
>
>
> So once again, that raises the issue of what sequences are preferable 
> for each version.
>
>
>
> In the case of Windows, the preferred sequence seems to be "OK", 
> "Cancel", and then "Apply" (based on the sequence which I have seen 
> within dialog boxes specifically implemented by MS).
>
>
>
> - What would be the preferred sequence for the Mac version?
>
>
>
> - And ditto for Gnome desktops, and ditto for yet other desktops used 
> with Linux?
>
>
>
> Maybe sequences could be defined within a header file, after which the 
> code for each dialog then acquires the appropriate specification for 
> each sequence concerned, and then implements the buttons concerned in 
> the thus-specified sequence.
>
>
>
> (There are yet other matters which I want to raise concerning dialog 
> boxes, but I'll refer to just one topic per message.)
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Geoff Harland.