Scott Smedley wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>I came across this article recently which explains some of the
>reasons why the Macintosh window-manager is so much more intuitive &
>user-friendly compared to the Windows window-manager.
>
>I thought some people here might find this an interesting read:
>
>http://www.asktog.com/columns/022DesignedToGiveFitts.html
>
>SCoTT. :)
>
>
Some of that was just silly. For instance, Microsoft hierarchical menus
do *not* require a user "slide across just right" to move from a
first-level to a second-level menu as stated in question 6. Microsoft
menus are on an appear/disappear delay, just like FVWM's.
I like these types of articles when written well, but it's IMO getting
old seeing Mac people explain why they don't need configurability and
virtual workspaces to be better than those interfaces that do. I could
pretend that how I use my computer is appropriate for everyone and make
a thousand word case for why mouse focus and virtual desktops are better
than everything. I could make an equally good case for ball peen hammers
or 16lb bowling balls or spread-bore carburetors. Luckily we FVWM users
all have choice.
"Magic pixels", autohiding, and large buttons can all be useful, but a
better article would be one which at least mentions the "trade-offs"
necessary to acheive these things.
-Shay
--
Visit the official FVWM web page at <URL: http://www.fvwm.org/>.
To unsubscribe from the list, send "unsubscribe fvwm" in the body of a
message to majordomo_at_fvwm.org.
To report problems, send mail to fvwm-owner_at_fvwm.org.
Received on Tue May 04 2004 - 16:51:27 BST