Subject: Re: Options dialog stable?
From: Paul Robichaux (paul@robichaux.net)
Date: Tue Feb 22 2000 - 21:17:56 CST
[nb. I've been lurking and following the Mac port discussion. I'm
eager to start cutting some Mac code, but until the Leonards, Bryans,
and Huberts get something that will launch without crashing I'll
stick with my 'real' work. ]
Paul Rohr opined:
>This may be perverse, but think of every entry in the Options dialog as
>dirty laundry related to an unfinished feature which needs a workaround. If
>you don't believe me, take a look at some other piece of software and ask
>yourself why each option is there.
For all the complaining open source folk do about Microsoft's
products, IMHO this is one area they get right. I'll stipulate that
points 2 and 4 are definitely true (and 4, in particular, is a hard
one to handle), but choices about functionality are often a Good
Thing.
Easy case in MS Word: do you want the grammar and spelling checkers
to work in near-real-time, indicating errors as they're spotted, or
in batch mode? You can make design arguments pro and con until you're
blue in the face, but the fact comes down to the end user's
/preference/. I won't argue that the options are always this
clear-cut (e.g. does anyone /want/ to use "fast save" mode?)
> - Does it really help to have multiple simultaneous preference schemes?
Absolutely. If you have a shared piece of equipment, you need to
support multiple preference sets. This is one of the things that MS
has gotten surprisingly good at providing in Windows 2000.
>Does that make sense?
>
Yes.
Back to lurking,
-the other Paul
-- Paul Robichaux, MCSE | paul@robichaux.net | <http://www.robichaux.net> Robichaux & Associates: programming, writing, teaching, consulting See http://www.exchangefaq.org for all your Exchange questions!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 22 2000 - 21:18:43 CST