Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 13th Jan 2008 20:09 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 295687
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, partly. The style may be partly taste, but the value of fluid transitions has been quite extensively studied. A transition done right is always easier to understand than a sudden change (which can induce change blindness).
It's not the transition I have issues with, it's the sliding concept in itself. I have a 22" 1680x1050 screen, why the need to cram all the menus into one tiny sliding box? It hides the menu path from view, and makes it unnecessarily complex to travel backwards.
Edited 2008-01-13 22:13 UTC
It's not the transition I have issues with, it's the sliding concept in itself. I have a 22" 1680x1050 screen, why the need to cram all the menus into one tiny sliding box? It hides the menu path from view, and makes it unnecessarily complex to travel backwards.
Yeah I think it would be better if the whole menu actually expanded sideways when you entered categories.. Like the columns view in Dolphin or Finder.
Mostly I just use KRunner anyway, so the design of the menu is mostly irrelevant. In KDE 3.5 i just removed it entirely. It's always faster to type.






Member since:
2005-09-21
Well, partly. The style may be partly taste, but the value of fluid transitions has been quite extensively studied. A transition done right is always easier to understand than a sudden change (which can induce change blindness).