W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > June 2007

Re[2]: WF2, abolish <button type=remove>

From: Dmitry Turin <html60@narod.ru>
Date: Mon, 11 Jun 2007 21:36:25 +0400
Message-ID: <1943209741.20070611213625@narod.ru>
To: public-html@w3.org

Excuse me for a long break.

WR> how it would facilitate access to repetition functionality

(1) "Bulky" means, that document has less visual elements in my way,
    therefore reader orientate himself faster (_work faster_), _less tire_.
(3) When writer does not write <button type=add/remove/move-up/move-down>,
    he has less job, especially when he write _nested_ repetition blocks.
(2) MS Office is standard for mentioned operations,
    therefore users have _habit_, formed by it. I offer to port way from it.
    _At least for polar case_, i.e. for <button type=remove>.
    Operations, making by <button type=move-up/move-down>,
    should be executed like in MS Excel.

WR> how your proposal is superior to the current UI conventions

Look #1 of previous cue.

TB> As a user, I *hate* having add/remove buttons do different things
TB> depending on where the focus is.

I see only one reason of it:
user must make two operation by mouse (change focus, press button),
instead one (press button).

I think, my #1 - #3 arguments weight more, than your objection.

WR> If authors do not wish to add bulk to their documents,
WR> then they may ... use the
WR> addRepetitionBlock, moveRepetitionBlock, and removeRepetitionBlock

TB> could almost be accomplished with a bunch of javascript

My conviction is
that user must have possibility to create document by only tags !
My opinion is
that you refer to the worse way, than even <button type=add/remove>.


WR> I believe that your ranking of the various button types is
WR> subjective (and personally unconvincing)

I'd like much more arguments (except emotional).

WR> [html5] give authors the ability to easily allow the user to add,
WR> move, or remove repetition blocks

Estimatation of only one way is impossible,
because only another ways can be measure for it.
So, it's necessary to compare ways.

P.S. As for "easily", look previous cue.

WR> which are much more intuitive ... than requiring the user
WR> to unconventionally access a browser menu

First, it's not correct (in point of logic) -
you compare category of different kinds: "intuitive" and "conventional".

Second, browser menu is unconventional ??

Dmitry Turin
Received on Thursday, 21 June 2007 05:21:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Thursday, 29 October 2015 10:15:22 UTC