Re: [Ayatana] Idea for improving visibility of running applications

[Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 4:54 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
<niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> There you just pointed to the exact problem I'm trying to address! If you
> look at the first frame of the mockup you see the current setup, the
> programs that are running have an illuminated background together with the
> arrow on the left side. But that illuminated background is hard to see due
> to the icon set.
...
> ... That is exactly how it is implemented right now ... haven't you even
> tried tweaking Unity with CCSM?

I recognize how the current implementation makes it harder to see
what's running and what not.
I suggested making it the visual indicator more like GNOME 3: less
subtle, more glow, more in your face.

In other words: don't decrease the visibility of non-running apps
(because of color based recognition and performance under less than
perfect screen conditions, glare, touchscreen smudges...) but instead
further increase the visibility of running apps. Additionally I
suggested introducing a 3rd state: hidden applications.
Three different states can only be implemented if they diverge
sufficiently from each other.

Finally I added that the current implementation does make sense, is by
design and should be kept
in a modern app-centric interface as implementations on mobile and
other platforms already demonstrate.

> Usually, at least for me, people know the location of a launcher without
> seeing it.
It's far from a save assumption that this applies to the majority of users.
In any case it increases the mental overhead and it doesn't apply to
infrequently used applications.

> And the dream
> situation would to have this as a configurable option to turn this feature
> on or off, depending on if you think it's required with your icon set.
...
>Together with the above setting for turning this feature on or off a simple
>slider could be implemented to set how many percent the icons should
>be grayed out.

More options that change the most fundamental and basic functionality of Unity?
I strongly disagree this approach is the way forward. The objectively
best solution should be default. The only goal of Unity should be to
come as close to that as humanly possible. That's why I also don't go
into CCSM. On this list I'm only talking about the OOTB experience.
Options are nice where they make sense but they should never be used
as an excuse to introduce a half-baked to broken solutions "because
you can change them anyway."