- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 11 Aug 2004 13:10:48 +0000 (UTC)
On Sat, 3 Jul 2004, Lachlan Hunt wrote: > > 1. In wizard interfaces where the user must sequentially step through > each, usually with Next and Back buttons. > This could use something like <sequential> for the container. > > eg. > <sequential> > <exclusive>...</exclusive> > <exclusive>...</exclusive> > </sequential> That could make sense, except that some use cases -- e.g. an application which is largely state-based, like logging in to a game system, organising a game in the lobby, and then starting the actual game -- aren't going to be exactly sequential, you could go back and forth or even jump straight to other states out of order. (Logging out of a game, reconnecting to a game in progress, etc.) > (my preference is for <exclusive>, rather than <mxsection>, simply > becuase I like actual words, rather than abbreviations where possible, > and when there's no benefit of either being shorter to type) I agree with that, fwiw. > 2. In options/properties dialogs, or other tabbed interfaces where the > user can view them in any order, usually with tabs or buttons. > This could use something like <concurrent> for the container. > eg. > <concurrent> > <exclusive>...</exclusive> > <exclusive>...</exclusive> > </concurrent> > > The element names could probably be better, expesially <concurrent>. I > wanted an antonym for sequential, and that was the most appropriate I > could find with my limited research. Tabs aren't mutually exclusive. You could quite legitimately degrade a tab-based UI into a fieldset-based UI. Indeed I think we should probably do that (as someone suggested on this list a while back). -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 11 August 2004 06:10:48 UTC