Subject: Re: Options dialog stable?
From: Paul Rohr (paul@abisource.com)
Date: Fri Feb 25 2000 - 18:24:12 CST
At 10:17 PM 2/22/00 -0500, Paul Robichaux wrote:
>[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. ]
Do tell. What kind of Mac coding are you interested in? ;-)
>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?)
Boy, you caught me on a testy day. Of course we need to have *some*
options, and looking at other products for examples of must-have switches is
always a good idea.
Would you be interested in helping Logan figure out which options would be
most useful to have in *our* dialog?
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Fri Feb 25 2000 - 18:18:42 CST