Ken,

Boy is that true! - We could surely do better than the "Windows Standard", and I think Alan Cooper is saying that!

The "Windows Standard" seems, first and foremost, designed to showcase the mouse. It seems PURPOSEFULLY designed to force unneeded mousing all over the place!

I wonder why, for instance, menus disappear once a selesction is made? Couldn't it stick around in case you want to make another chioce from the same menu? At the very least, couldn't we be given a PREFERENCE setting for that?

Same goes for rt-click menus, even especially more so there, where often they list properties to be turned on/off, and usually one wants more than one. Having to move the mouse again to the 'object', rt-click again, then move it down the list again is just plain wasteful and frustrating.

I've already griped elsewhere about my pet peeves with Help, and the dispaareaing windows and extraneous mousing it forces. It clearly does NOT have the user in mind, but seems to have the wonders of the MOUSE as its main focus.


Finally, to stay on topic. . . in the VFP cammand window, if one does a PREPLACE ALL. . . one does not get (or expect) that a confirmation window will appear, neither on issuing the command or upon exiting VFP. So maybe we force on our USERS what we do not have imposed on us. Doesn't that make us at least a little presumptuous regarding the level of sophistication of our users (ie they're probably 90% 'idiots')????

Cheers,

Jim N

>It's been some time since I read Cooper's book. However, there are some things to be said for familiarity. That's why I try to implement Windows standards in my applications. My applications work like others. It helps the user. You are correct, we don't need a save button, but it is another "Warm fuzzy".
>
>Keep in mind, that alot of (if not most) "Windows Standards" were originally implemented by someone else long before MS. Who's to say we can't be the originators of a better approach?