Re: Fwd: Re: AbiWord Font Usability question

From: Alan Horkan (horkana@tcd.ie)
Date: Wed Aug 28 2002 - 10:09:55 EDT

  • Next message: Hubert Figuiere: "Re: cvs graph, mozilla, infamy"

    On Wed, 28 Aug 2002, Hubert Figuiere wrote:

    > Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 04:59:43 -0400
    > From: Hubert Figuiere <hub@nyorp.abisource.com>
    > To: abiword-dev@nyorp.abisource.com
    > Subject: Fwd: Re: AbiWord Font Usability question

    > Microsoft seems to have recognized these use cases, and tries to fufill
    > (1) by providing an MRU list at the top of the font pulldown, and (2) by

    MRU Fonts!
    Told you so, was it last year i filed that feature request.
    (having a very immature moment!!!)

    > Instead I propose to only include 5-8 MRU items in the font pulldown
    > menu (organized alphabetically, to organize by recency of use will
    > probably only serve to confuse), then a seperator then "Other Fonts..."

    probably?
    anything to back this up?
    Most recently used makes sense to be ordered by most recently used.
    how about a comparison to what Word does? If Word orders MRU by MRU
    which i think it does then taking a differnt approach really requires
    some backup.

    > which will open up a font selection dialogue. The fonts in the pulldown
    > menu should be drawn in their own faces for consistency and to provide

    > Initially the MRU menu would be populated by a few exemplar fonts from
    > common classes. So for English (and probably most european languages?)

    clever. good defaults.

    > As a further optimization allowed by resticting the pulldown menu to a
    > fixed length, AbiWord could move to using an option menu control rather
    > than a combo box. Fitt's law says that time to acquire a target with the
    > mouse is a function of distance from the cursor and size of the target.
    > The pulldown button for combo boxes is a very small target indeed.
    > Option menus provide a much larger target. Combo boxes have a scrolling
    > ability however, that, I conjecture, is the main reason they have
    > traditionally been used for font menus. This need is eliminated with a
    > fixed length menu.

    this sounds like back up for what i was saying about big targets, but Seth
    is starting to confuse me.

    > The only other advantage of a combo box is that you can directly type
    > the name of a font in rather than going through the list. I have rarely
    > seen this used, and its very hard to do without typeahead (which abiword

    what i said.

    > gains from everyone having a bigger target to click on far outweigh the
    > cost of a few people not being able to type directly anymore. Also, the

    bigger target better i say.

    > this is not too uncommon for graphic layout folk....however I don't know
    > how relevant that activity is to a word processor).

    i dont think people many are yet using Abiword for Desktop Publishing.

    Sincerely
    Alan Horkan

    (just in a silly immature mood, not drunk so dont even ask)



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Wed Aug 28 2002 - 10:14:00 EDT