delorie.com/archives/browse.cgi   search  
Mail Archives: geda-user/2012/11/16/19:35:10

X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f
X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
bh=dcShI84WGWfrlXp0WfDjiiB5G0GsWfvSDrnF5zUGPiU=;
b=gU0Oywc1eMNfdMO7imhe5kKBjUqevAR7qGvDNx1omnMszZuB8Gj67Zfke3Hz3phrOk
yastRcStQueFZYWsmgwQ5WyVtnkyb7ra7qY3BRMf3LDRladRW1vhj3HULLAXoMJKIIcT
pGCvp7sSsrSsImgdClL5+RxDFpzglnWEV5896NKec/hxl97MZPTWA7cX2eh3nnUaA7Zi
h0H3Muh4OutGqLDcCv6CK7FbgcbHF9JfQDf8kpjAdI7KA+rP1PzMgecZY1ivVLllpL2Q
8iRr1p7iT/fHBQXeH7e2skJyX479MtWHtch6zvn7wpSWfRPLk/EpA5Z2f9uBUoWrrXKB
9p0w==
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4@noqsi.com>
References: <50A688B8 DOT 4090809 AT neurotica DOT com>
<CC923058-B962-45B5-973D-EA03906430B9 AT noqsi DOT com>
<50A6A265 DOT 6050300 AT neurotica DOT com>
<4E8E6F31-EF8D-4540-BA86-7935C1C3E6D8 AT noqsi DOT com>
<50A6A95C DOT 5030903 AT neurotica DOT com>
<355DEF4F-51BB-44A8-A5F4-D8564E7E7885 AT noqsi DOT com>
<20121116213601 DOT 13718 DOT qmail AT stuge DOT se>
<66889AAB-3A82-4861-ACB0-B35A876EF6F4 AT noqsi DOT com>
Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2012 15:33:47 -0900
Message-ID: <CAC4O8c8s3837dD5so1hu-QOm8PW69sehVNNX7njQvnRGzXODGw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [geda-user] Thoughts on gschem UI
From: Britton Kerin <britton DOT kerin AT gmail DOT com>
To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by delorie.com id qAH0XqfJ027808
Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Fri, Nov 16, 2012 at 2:01 PM, John Doty <jpd AT noqsi DOT com> wrote:
>
> On Nov 16, 2012, at 2:36 PM, Peter Stuge wrote:
>
>> John Doty wrote:
>>> the gschem UI is what it is, very old fashioned, and trying to
>>> improve it by adding "features" has made it harder to use, not
>>> easier. 21st century UI's are fundamentally very different. I
>>> would support an effort to make a modern gschem.
>>
>> I'd love to hear more about this!
>>
>> What are your biggest issues with gschem UI?
>
> I have few issues, but I'm an old greybeard. I don't have any issues with a manual transmission on a car either (indeed, it can be advantageous), but I understand that many no longer learn to drive such a thing.
>
>>
>> And how would they not be issues with a modern UI?
>
> If you're not used to how GUI worked circa 1990, I expect the gschem UI is very confusing. For example, it has too many dialog boxes, often unexpectedly modal. There's a dialog to create text, different one to edit text, and yet another to edit text that happens to be an attribute. Then there's a command for rotation. A modern GUI would let you create and edit text in place, and give you an "inspector" that, if text is selected, would let you adjust rotation, size, alignment, font, etc. You also might have shortcuts for rotation and size adjustment, but the universal tool for presentation would be the inspector.

Some UI have inspectors but for always-used things like rotate plenty of
modern UI just make you memorize it, blender and all other 3D model editors
(which put about as heavy a load on UI as any programs) have piles of things
like this.

The key is to give users some programmed way to find out about it/learn it
in the first place, which is where gEDA suffers from its good but somewhat
scattered and disjointed documentation.

Britton

- Raw text -


  webmaster     delorie software   privacy  
  Copyright © 2019   by DJ Delorie     Updated Jul 2019