On Tue, Jan 4, 2011 at 15:49, Matthew Paul Thomas
<mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 17/12/10 15:18:
>...
>...
>> frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx <mailto:frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote on
>> 16/12/10 18:42:
>>>...
That looks like a useful feature, but I don't understand how it's
relevant to this discussion.
Because having in indicator for whether or not i'm connected to the internet already untangles the semantic confusion of having a button called "Offline" in the Me Menu to a great extent.
I for one believe that solving one large problem often makes many little problems become even smaller, eventually disappearing by themselves ;)
>> The main reason is that, as you say,
>>
>>> Busy aka DoNotDisturb has been around for as long as i know
>>> Presence in IM,
>>
>> and no-one has ever gotten around the problem that (a) having to go
>> online with your IM account for the purpose of being interrupted
>> *less* often would be daft, and
>
> I did! ;) (perhaps a mail that never left /drafts) :
> * put an ON|OFF toggle for IM into the MeMenu
You did. But that is exactly what I meant by "(b) any design that works
around that by making 'being online' a separate thing from being in 'do
not disturb' mode would make IM slower and more complicated to use".
ok, i'm beginning to understand that now, i wish i were faster :D
In the mockups i sketched so far for a combined menu i omitted this thought already, since i felt my theory to be impracticaL.
> * always keep Presence controls active, regardless of IM¹
What use would that be? How would you avoid wasting people's time, by
wrongly implying that it's useful for them to toggle between "brb" and
"In a meeting" (for example) when they're not even online?
I'd say Notify OSD and e.g. power management or the screensaver service would like to know if i'm busy doing something, even if that would mean i'm only staring at the screen, or there's a standing picture being displayed. Your point makes perfect sense, but i'm not talking about the Presence controls in Online-only fashion, i see them as a status relevant to the local system also.
> * remove "Available", since it is identical with the regular Presence
> state for IM and the Desktop Session
What regular presence state?
i'll keep looking there if i have further questions..
> * remove "Offline", since it is identical to IM = OFF
That would make instant messaging state more difficult to understand in
Ubuntu than in any other OS.
yes, i won't argue on that, as i came to realize while making the mockups.
It is better to have all available states together in one place, if i'm looking for completeness.
I wasn't sure whether stopping and starting services belonged into the launcher and dash, rather than into the status indicators..
I also can't find the policy on that anymore.. perhaps someone can help?
Only the wording/syntax is misleading, because it could easily be confused with sending networking offline.
Someone who knows for sure that he/she is manipulatin IM Presence controls will know which "offline" exactly is meant here.
The term "offline" as is might scare users away from ever touching anything within this whole menu, that's why i've been trying to model my way around the raw inclusion of this item..
Apart from that, i'm still uncertain whether to consider "offline" aka "logged out" aka "disconnected from chat" as User availability status, presence status or as both..
> * allow checking and unchecking Away OR Busy
> * make "Invisible" an extra checkbox, orthogonal to the other Presence
> controls. [perhaps rename to "visible"]
What use would that be? What's the useful distinction between Invisible
+ Available and Invisible + Away?
Whether i'm visible is orthogonal to whether i'm available or not.
This again is only relevant, if Presence is honored by the local system. If not so, e.g. if the screensaver or update-manager can kick in, regardless if i'm set to busy, not available or do not disturb, these distinctions are of no value, as you already seem to indicate.
> This is why i mentioned invisible in the first place.
> For those who want to appear as "busy" or "do not disturb" on IM, while
> keeping notifications ON (unmuted), we can leave an override interface
> in Empathy, as Contact List currently has.
> Me Menu Presence controls should remain the Master controls for all
> clients who obey the User's wish for privacy as commanded via Me Menu.
I don't understand what this has to do with privacy. What do you mean?
with privacy i mean not being interrupted in my work. Just me and my work, no system with its "events", "notices", popups or other types of seemingly deliberate interruption.
so Privacy is not the correct word here then, perhaps "desired state of vailability" is still more fitting.
>...
> I need a way of guaranteeing that during a high level staff meeting, my
> presentation will absolutely not be interrupted by anything.
>...
That's not practical. We'll still interrupt you when you have only a
few minutes battery left, or when your hard disk is dying -- as well we
should.
that's clear, and valid, but nothing less critical would be.
So, any global knob would be for "fewer interruptions", not "no
interruptions". And this would make it impractical to communicate.
True, i know this from audio workstations, they tried to communicate that a certain mode would enable "zero latency", which is physically unachievable.
So the industry leader ( AVID ) called their implementation "Low Latency".
I think Low Interruption is not a good name, but Do Not Disturb, Silent Mode or Notifications Off or any of the like would be quite good approximations of what i am trying to establish here..
Fewer than what, exactly?
Yes, clearly that's the main point against this all, i think Ubuntu is already so well designed and balanced, the interruptions that occur are all wanted, when in the appropriate state e.g. Available or Idle.
And why would people ever *not* choose fewer
interruptions?
There are states in which i want to be notified aggressively i.e. interrupted, and there are states in which i can't afford being interrupted.
In such a state of course i would make sure my battery is charged or i'm safely plugged into a wall socket.
To me, from a user point of view, "no interruptions" is equivalent to "no interruptions, unless critically necessary ones", which mathematically translates to your "fewer interruptions". To name the ones i can think of by myself:
* Update manager
* Notify OSD bubbles
* Session start sound (login sound)
* whatever notification is supposed to appear upon incoming voice and video calls
* morphing windows, e.g. for filetransfer requests or contact subscription requests
all of these i would like to see, hear and not miss when i'm set to "Available".
I wouldn't want to see them when i'm set to "busy", "do not disturb", "silent mode", "fewer interruptions", "less notifications", "no bubbles" or what have you ;)
How would this be different from saying to them, "Sorry,
the makers of Ubuntu are too incompetent to design software. Why don't
you have a go"?
I see your point, you would prefer handing a turnkey solution to the user, that "just works".
Yet surely it is an agreeable presumption, to say that the design of Ubuntu is, as excellent it has already gotten, work in progress.
Being work in progress, it has already imo surpassed the HCI experience of many proprietary systems, including the most popular PC desktop operating system(s).
That's why i'm glad i can be here to learn from you folks, it's an honor and a great experience every time.
I think adding ideas on a discussion list for Usability and User Interface design can be the right way to say thank you, can it?