New to the list

[Don Y]

Zane H. Healy wrote:
>> OTOH, giving a user TOO MUCH control over the interface can be
>> just as bad.  You end up adding code to support all these choices
>> and build tools to give the user access to those choices (even if
>> it's just a list of checkboxes, etc.) and that code has to be
>> maintained, tested, etc.
>>
>> And, you get comments from users *trying* to use it yet finding
>> that it isn't *completely* flexible ("why can't I specify italic
>> text to be displayed in white?").
>>
>> It's a tough job trying to figure out what flexibility to allow
>> the user and what things to cast in concrete.  Especially when you
>> are dealing with such a broad spectrum of users!
> 
> In my case I want to turn "expose" and "widgets" off on Mac OS X, as well as
> the special effects.  That's the bulk of the control I'm looking for.  While
> you can disable expose (no hot keys), it is probably still wasting
> resources.  The "widgets" problem is much larger, as far as I know there is
> no way to turn it off, it is a major waste of resources.  It was one of the
> reasons I dumped 10.4 and went back to 10.3.9.  At least the special effects
> can be turned off.

Yes.  No doubt a good point -- yet everyone can come up with
their own wish lists.  Figuring out where to draw the line
gets tough.  And, if you don't draw *any* line, then you
make more work for yourself with very little "commercial"
gain.

I like the original UN*X mantra -- build tools out of smaller
tools.  It gives you lots of places to insert "controls"...
without *requiring* their presence.

These monolithic things are either too stupid (by trying to be
too *smart*!) or too bulky/unwieldy.