On 2008-02-21 at 20:55:08 [+0100], Bruno Albuquerque <bga@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > Maurice Kalinowski wrote: > > >> The problem with such an icon approach is that the icon, at that size, > >> is nothing more than a few insignificant pixels lumped together, not > >> really distinguishable anyway (small icons are heck for i.e. > >> accessibility). > > > > For what it is worth, I would prefer the icons too. The list entries you > > were talking about so far (About, application configuration) are used > > very rarely. This might also be an indicator that you are not willing to > > be disturbed by this huge element in the menu list all the time (while > > for instance Edit, etc. are used on a much more regular basis). > > More than that, the thing about the icon being too small at the required > resolution is completely irrelevant. Eventually the user will be > "trained" to know the the icon menu is where application-specific stuff > resides. He will not be "trained" to look for an icon tha resembles > whatever the application does. Eventually, this specific menu entry will > end up being caled the Icon Menu, just like we already have the Haiku Menu. +1. A very good argument pro the icon menu, IMHO. Best regards, -Stephan