Porting apps to launch with KUAL (question)

[stepk]

Originally Posted by NiLuJe

EDIT: AFAIR, the parser failing on one extension shouldn't prevent it from handling everything else ;?.

That is how it works; the parser logs an error about the failing extension and carries on parsing all valid extensions.

[brianinmaine]

Originally Posted by stepk

@scullyware, press the KUAL item, in the picture you posted the KUAL item with a black dot under the pull-down menu.
@twobob and other developers, as a first-time user, scullyware's inability to spot KUAL's error messages isn't unusual. Maybe we should improve usability in this area.

A first-time user who is greeted with an error message sees
KUAL * ( 1 ) to the initiated that means KUAL * ( <error count>)
but to the first-time user it means nothing special.
I also think that naming KUAL's own menu "KUAL" is confusing.
Comments anyone?

Funny, I have been using this menu for a while and I NEVER READ ANY DOCUMENTATION so I didn't realize there was an error either. My mistake, but I agree it's not obvious? Mine says 1+, and I just skipped it as it wasn't what I was looking for.

[knc1]

Originally Posted by brianinmaine

Funny, I have been using this menu for a while and I NEVER READ ANY DOCUMENTATION so I didn't realize there was an error either. My mistake, but I agree it's not obvious? Mine says 1+, and I just skipped it as it wasn't what I was looking for.

Reading this discussion thread reminds me that I have read about this error reporting feature in the past here.

But just looking at the menu (mine has one of the "dot 1" decorations) was not enough to trigger the recollection that something is wrong here.

Translation:
The current error reporting is "neat" from an artistic stand point, but I agree that from a comprehension stand point, it could be improved.