It is not necessary to send me a copy of every message you write. Unless there is a specific reason (1), better let me decide for myself which threads I am interested in.

Regards,

Hilmar.


>>>I don't know if it is important to follow window's standards. The implementation of the "standards" are not much different (IMO) than they were back in 3.1.
>
>>>The "Windows" approach is just one, but not the only approach to intuitive design. We're just used to it. Since most of the stuff the desktop are MS products, and the implied "standard" may be more of a "manufacturing" convenience.
>
>I think I just need to clarify this a little
>
>For menus, I'd say stick with the standards, it is really is a pain when you get an app and nothing in it is where it belongs on the menus. This is a pet peeve of mine. If you want to make a vertical main menu instead of a horizontal menu fine, I could possibly see that being pulled off, but put print on the File menu, not the Tools menu.
>
>For toolbars... you can stray a bit further, but an icon of a disk for instance should save something not open something. And it helps if they are placed in pretty much the usual position and order, so they are easier to find.
>
>I am not saying you have to use the default windows icons there is no reason you can't use a nice themed set of icons. (However... the themed part is important, they need to go together, a mishmash of different styles does not work well.) And it doesn't hurt for them to resemble the normal icons. If I want to print something, I am normally going to look for an icon of a printer, if you put print under an icon of a garden tractor, their is a good chance I'm not going to follow your logic.
>
>That said... rules like this are made to be broken, if the default icons are to be rarely used, by all means move them further over to the right. Or if they are unused or serve no purpose eliminate them. The main thing on toolbars and icons is, the user has to be able to look at it and tell what it does, the icons have to communicate, that's the rule you do not violate. (And use tooltips cause no matter how hard you try you're going to leave some of us scratching our heads.)
>
>That half life 2 skin I linked broke almost every rule in the book, but it works, because most of it's controls do communicate. (There's only one control on it I consider to be a poor choice, the visualizations button looks like a favorites icon to me.)
>
>I wouldn't however just break the rules for the sake of breaking the rules. If you're going to deviate have a reason and also be aware of your limitations. The less skilled you are graphically the better off you are with a simpler design. Complex designs take a high degree of skill to make look good. A simple design can still look great, start with the simple if you can master that, then you are ready to move on.
>
>>>I think graphic artists would be the a good source for alternative "intuitive" design methodologies. I am glad you are going to think on it!:)
>
>I consider the interface itself, to actually be an exercise in graphics design, so I look for what I can use in that area in my design. And I'll take an idea from a hard copy I receive in the mail just as readily as I will take an idea from an electronic source.