Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!ogicse!milton!blake.u.washington.edu!dlarson
From: dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu (Dale Larson)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.tech
Subject: Re: GUI Style Question
Message-ID: <10177@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 29 Oct 90 20:09:18 GMT
References: <1990Oct25.212714.26909@unislc.uucp> <10109@milton.u.washington.edu> <6919@sugar.hackercorp.com>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: The Evergreen State College,  WA
Lines: 26

In article <6919@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com 
(Peter da Silva) writes:
>Since nobody's suggesting you do that, what's your point. Set up your string

lhotka@incstar.uucp (Glamdring) suggested it very clearly (complete with 
programming details) in article <635@incstar.uucp>.  The message to which my 
reply was directed also seemed to be suggesting that I check string gadgets
whenever they are deactivated.  (Sorry, but it is not practical for me to
quote those earlier articles from this set-up).  My point, then, is not only 
to debate the assertions of those articles but to engage in (hopefully)
clarifying discussion regarding what can be a rather sticky point of style.

>gadgets and do you checking when they hit "done". If there's a problem leave
>the window open, display a message, and leave the cursor on that gadget.
>
>Programs that are too picky in realtime are annoying.

Programs which aren't picky enough in realtime are annoying, too.  If the 
validity of several fields can be checked with help from an earlier field,
such checking should be done early to save entry of several bogus fields.  
Perhaps more importantly, [RETURN] in a string gadget should move the cursor 
to the next string gadget in that window in most (if not all) applications 
(though perhaps you didn't intend to preclude such minimal processing of 
string gadgets before the user hits "done"). 
--
-Dale Larson  (dlarson@blake.u.washington.edu)