Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 28 Mar 1996 18:31:22 -0500 (EST) | From | "William E. Roadcap" <> | Subject | Re: Linux-1.3.79 |
| |
On Thu, 28 Mar 1996, Dave Barr wrote:
> In message <Pine.LNX.3.91.960328164335.3770C-100000@titus.cfw.com>, "William E. > Roadcap" writes: > >The indicator IS there. Read the top of the menu. If an option has > >pointed brackets <> then it is module capable. That was the best way I > >could think of to indicate tristates without increasing the line > >lengths. Some lines are already to long as it is. > > > >I don't thing the 'Y' inside brackets is as effective a visual flag as > >the '*' character. > > Then how can you argue that "< >" is an effective visual flag compared > to "( )" ? I sense a double standard.
I have resent my original reply to the kernel list with more elaboration. I did this because the first reply bounced due to the Usenet or yggdrasil routing or some other stupid reason. Please read that message when you get it, perhaps my reasoning will be more clear.
Perhaps that message will invoke some feedback on the subject. Whatever the majority request, will probably be where I go.
But here's my reply to this message:
The <> characters indicate that an option is module capable without using any more screen real estate than is necessary and without making the screen unneccesarily busy. Some config lines are already too long and others are pushing it.
I think that <> stands out quite well from () to indicate modular capability. I see no double standard here.
> I don't see why "(Y)" is not an effective visual flag. It's certainly > highly visible, especially compared to "( )", and is far more intiutive > compared to "(*)". "*" conveys no information other than "here I am". > "Y" says "Yes" -- an intuitive answer to the selection of Y, N, or M.
No, in my view, (*) stands for ON or IN, ( ) stands for OFF, and <M> stands for the OTHER choice. Each of these indicators is VERY DISTINCTIVE visually. That is the key, I want the indicators to be as different from one another as possible. They can easily be discerned from one another while glancing down a menu. If the menu is filled with Y/N/M, those character will tend to visualy blend together because the are not that distinctive (all alphabetic).
> In fact, I'd like to see Y N M used exclusively, rather than "( )" > implying "(N)".
No... Missing flag = missing feature, it's that simple. Light is on or light is off. Flag is marked or flag is missing. It's a matter of seeing what you have at a glance.
> You could make up for lost space by something like this, while at the > same time making things more obvious: > > (YNM) > (Y ) This is a compiled-in item, available as a module > ( N ) This is a not-compiled-in item, available as a module > ( M) This is an item compiled as a module > (N -) This is a not-compiled-in item, not available as module > ( Y-) This is a compiled-in item, not available as a module.
Now IMHO that is terribly busy and LESS obvious! There's just no way that's going to happen. However, I have been know to change my mind right out of the blue. Until then, I suggest you change your personal copy of Menuconfig.
__ William E. Roadcap mailto://roadcapw@cfw.com TITUS Software ftp://titus.cfw.com/pub Waynesboro, Va (USA) http://www.cfw.com/~roadcapw
| |