On Sun, Apr 15, 2001 at 11:54:49AM -0700, Dan Shafer wrote:
> 
> --- Joshua Channing Gargus <schwa at cc.gatech.edu> wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 14, 2001 at 10:38:36PM -0700, Dan Shafer wrote:
> > 
> > > I called the entire surrounding pantheon of icons a halo but I think
> > > Squeakers generally call each of the buttons surrounding the
> > > selected object a halo. I'm not sure it matters _too_ much but in
> > > tutorials we probably ought to agree on
> > > the terminology.
> > 
> > I don't.  I call the whole surrounding bunch of handles a halo, and
> > each handle a handle :-)  This is what they're called in the source
> > code (see HaloMorph>>addDebug/Drag/Drop/Dismiss/EtcHandle).
> 
> A halo of handles. I don't suppose there's anything inherently _wrong_ about
> that, but semantically it falls apart a bit. I mean, a "handle" both in the
> analog world and in the computer UI universe, is an item by which one grabs
> hold of something in order to change it. The resize, duplicate, rotate,
> collapse, pickup, move, and delete handles can certainly be thought of as
> handles in that sense. But the menu and eye handles can't be. Some others are
> less clear.

Good point.

> However if the source already uses this terminology, changing it
> should demand a compelling reason and I'm not sure we have one here.
>
> So I'd lean toward a halo of icons or a halo of buttons rather than
> a halo of handles but I'm not so strongly convinced of that that I'd
> argue very hard against it.

Perhaps icons, but not buttons.  The resize handle doesn't act like a button 
any more than the menu handle acts like a handle.  I also wouldn't argue 
too hard against the status quo, but then again, I've been using the 
terminology for long enough that it seem natural.

Any new Squeakers out there who are deeply troubled by the current naming
scheme?

Joshua


> 
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. 
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/