|
|
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 15:20:03 +0100, "Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
<rijk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Op Tue, 18 Nov 2008 23:34:41 +0100 schreef Matthew Winn
> <o*@matthewwinn.me.urk>:
>
> > I think it was Tom Christiansen who said, of Unix: "It doesn't stop
> > you from doing stupid things because that would also stop you from
> > doing clever things". I want to do clever things. If that means I have
> > to be aware of the consequences of doing clever things, so be it. The
> > stupid people have IE for /their/ needs.
>
> That's the condescending attitude of declaring people who want their
> software to 'just work', without having to read the tutorial and
> frequenting newsgroups and dedicated web forums, as 'stupid'.
As opposed to the condescending attitude of saying that a window with
only the basic window controls would be confusing to users?
When a 9.27 window is detached it ends up with the standard window
manager controls, just like every other ordinary window. That would
only be confusing to people who have never used windows before. And
it's much friendlier than being able to turn off the menu and toolbars
in the main Opera window. I presume that capability isn't going to be
removed?
The 9.62 functionality is actually much, MUCH worse than the 9.27
behaviour, in that if the parent window is near the edge of the screen
it will create the new window with the standard window manager buttons
off the edge of the screen. Creating a partially hidden window is far
more confusing than creating a visible window that works exactly like
a window should work.
> I want my my
> girlfriend, and father, and kids to be able to use Opera. I don't want
> them to use IE!
Have they actually said they can't use Opera because it has detachable
pages? Or is this entirely a theoretical problem?
> Note that I'm all in favor of being able to do clever things. Being able
> to tear a tab away is nice, and maybe we can improve so the newly created
> app window doesn't get maximized right away for example.
It's not a matter of not maximizing it. It's a matter of removing all
the clutter that isn't necessary when you just want to look at the
important stuff: the page contents. What improvement is required? The
9.27 functionality is already excellent, and what you're suggesting
is a way to make 9.70 a little less broken than 9.62. Why not just
restore the useful functionality that was there before? Have an option
to enable it if you like, but please don't deprive people of useful
functionality because you're afraid that someone, somewhere, someday,
might not want that feature.
It's like the cache extensions all over again. You take a wonderful
feature used by many people, completely ruin it, and then try to bodge
together a compromise that makes it slightly less ruined. Why not
simply base the product on the features that genuine users actually
use, rather than on what some Opera staff think hypothetical users
might find troublesome? After all, you have real users here telling
you that they have a real need for what used to be a real feature. I
don't recall ever hearing someone say they couldn't use Opera because
it was possible to detach pages.
--
Matthew Winn
[If replying by mail remove the "r" from "urk"]
|
|