From xemacs-m  Tue Feb 11 23:56:31 1997
Received: from bayserve.net (bay1.bayserve.net [206.148.244.200])
	by xemacs.org (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id XAA27598
	for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Tue, 11 Feb 1997 23:56:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from localhost (jmiller@localhost) by  bayserve.net (8.7.2/8.7.2) with SMTP id BAA00469 for <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>; Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:01:18 -0500 (EST)
Date: Wed, 12 Feb 1997 01:01:18 -0500 (EST)
From: Jeff Miller <jmiller@bay1.bayserve.net>
To: beta-list <xemacs-beta@xemacs.org>
Subject: Re: menus vs. custom (was: grr, need help on menus.)
In-Reply-To: <QQccnj07791.199702120458@crystal.WonderWorks.COM>
Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.95.970212005255.27642C-100000@bay1.bayserve.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII


On Tue, 11 Feb 1997, Kyle Jones wrote:

> I haven't yet looked closely at custom.el yet, but one thing it
> has in its favor as far as I'm concerned is that it is not menu
> based.  Navigating menus and submenus and subsubmenus is tedious
> and difficult.  Using a frame with click buttons, knobs and so
> forth is much easier to deal with.  If custom.el didn't already
> exist I would have written something like it for VM anyway.

I guess it also has the plus that some using xemacs -nw could still do
configuration.  right?

> Menus are good for options that you might want to change often and
> immediately.  But for large swamps of preferences, the menus
> become unwieldy.

I would tend to agree here. 

I just would hate to see the Options menu thrown out altogether.  When it
got added, I thought it was one of the best additions I had seen in
awhile.  Custom may be the way to go in the future, but right now I'm not
convined.  It just doesn't feel intuitive to me yet.   

At least the stuff under the XEmacs Help menu doesn't.  Is the something
more "custom" ized?  Wasn't w3?  Or am I confused as usual? :-)



