https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1133127
--- Comment #44 from Mike FABIAN <mfabian(a)redhat.com> ---
(In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #42)
> When one wants to change for example from the Chinese mode 0 to
> Chinese mode 4 (as above), one can click one of these icons 4 times.
> This is much faster than opening the menu 4 times and clicking on
> a menu entry 4 times (lots of mouse movement!).
> So it is ridiculous doing this via the menu, it is not so bad with the
> floating panel. Some people like the floating panel.
I find it strange that you compare floating panel
with current rusle menu, and not with the SKK sub-menu
style. From your description I can guess that sub-menu
is still better because it allows any change in just 1
mouse click whereas floating panel require 4.
Floating panel requires 4 clicks in case of a toogle
and no submenu. I.e. total 4 actions.
If there were a submenu, it would need one click, a mouse movement to
the submenu and another click (In the floating panel). Total 3 actions.
When one is not using the floating panel, in case of the toogle style,
one needs 1 click to open the menu, one mouse movement and one click
on the toggle to change the toggle once. I.e. to change the toogle 4
times this makes 8 clicks and 4 mouse movements. Togal 12
actions.
Whereas in case of the submenu style one needs 1 click to
open the menu, one mouse movement to the menu entry, one click to open
the submenu, another mouse movement and a click on the submenu
entry. Total 3 clicks and 2 mouse movements. Total 5 actions.
That means when using the menu from the panel, the toggle is
very wasteful, far more clicks and movements.
When using the floating panel, the difference is not that big.
Although the difference is small when using the floating panel,
the submenu style is much easier to understand and therefore better.
So I should really tackle that item from my todo list to convert
these toogles into submenus.
(In reply to Mike FABIAN from comment #41)
> (In reply to Stas Sergeev from comment #39)
> > I also wonder why the user is supposed to
> > know what is "Normal commit" and "Direct commit".
> > IMHO a completely meaningless things,
> You are right that it is very bad that there is no good documentation
> explaining this. I should add documentation for these options.
Well, documentation is a good thing, but the menu items
itself should be somewhat sensible too. For example,
"Phrase mode" means something, while "Normal commit mode"
means purely nothing, IMHO.
Almost certainly the options that are useful for users,
can have a meaningful name. Options with meaningless
names are usually invented by programmers for programmers. :)
Yes, I will change the wording of the "Normal commit mode" and
"Direct commit mode" options.
> > are they really needed in the main language menu?
> For some Chinese input methods, for example Wubi, it is useful and
> should be there.
Do they really need to switch it from default all that often?
Not sure, maybe most Wubi user leave it to "Normal commit mode" and
don’t change it, but I am not sure.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=H0zspSWUvU&a=cc_unsubscribe