[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Ayatana] Idea for improving visibility of running applications
On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 20:31, Spike Burch <spikeb@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The idea of having the boxes around the icons be clear when not
> running and colored when running is a good one. the fading bit is too
> distracting.
Another approach for showing which applications are started could
be to decrease the icon size of the not running apps.
Or modify the place where the icons are drawn : for example move
them N pixels to the right .
> On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
> <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> "But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the
>> background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility
>> with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover,
>> i.e. more consistent and more usable."
>>
>> The reason for why I don't think that's such a good idea is because there's
>> a risk there will be too much going on on the launcher together with
>> colorful icons, counters and progress bars. Therefore I believe the solution
>> is to tune down the noise and not add more, this will provide a cleaner
>> interface.
>> I just finished my JS and HTML mockup and I feel that it works very good in
>> practice. Don't expect it to be completely bug free because I did it quick
>> and dirty to just have something to show you guys. It basically works in all
>> new browsers so feel free to try it out. Though if you click around like
>> crazy there's a chance the icons don't change as they should.
>> Mockup:
>> http://unity-mockup.nsrosenqvist.com/
>> Source:
>> http://unity-mockup.nsrosenqvist.com/source/unity-mockup.zip
>> 2011/5/4 Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
>>> <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> > I think it would be a shame to desaturate the applications which aren't
>>> > running at all times. If you have the launcher set to always visible and
>>> > only one application running then it would look dark and boring, don't
>>> > you
>>> > think?
>>>
>>> Not only the looks, I think desaturated icons don't look exactly
>>> inviting to a new user. They more look like either hidden or even
>>> crashed applications, not like launchers. I'm repeating myself, but
>>> this problem isn't actually solved by making that view hover only.
>>> Just the first part (the looks) is made a bit less glaring.
>>>
>>> > And as I said in my previous post, I can't really see the use in
>>> > showing which applications are hidden. It has never been deemed
>>> > necessary,
>>> > not in Windows and in Gnome 2.x it's only shown with a pair of "[ ]"
>>> > around the application name, and I've honestly really thought about that
>>> > 'til now .
>>>
>>> That's because neither OS had a concept of hidden applications. It
>>> doesn't even exist in Unity yet. But it exits in OS X and the
>>> transparent hidden icons for the Dock is a frequently used option
>>> there. Just google "defaults write com.apple.Dock showhidden -bool
>>> YES" and check how many results you get.
>>>
>>>
>>> > That is why I'm still convinced that my original idea is the best
>>> > proposed solution so far. As Ed Lin pointed out it might be a problem in
>>> > getting the launcher to react on hover, but wouldn't it benefit the UX
>>> > (User
>>> > Experience) greatly? Isn't it worth it?
>>>
>>> But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the
>>> background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility
>>> with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover,
>>> i.e. more consistent and more usable.
>>>
>>> > Some didn't like that the icons greyed out completely and I understand
>>> > that
>>> > and that's why I proposed a configuration option for that. If we just
>>> > take a
>>> > look on how it would look like if it wasn't completely greyed out and
>>> > only
>>> > partially desaturated the idea might feel more approachable. That's why
>>> > I
>>> > created a new version of my previous mockup:
>>> >
>>> > http://i.imgur.com/3bajD.png
>>>
>>> Much better, but this still leaves above 2 questions.
>>>
>>> > Please just give it some reconsideration out of the UX-perspective. If
>>> > this
>>> > was an option then I feel that this would be enough to provide a start
>>> > for a
>>> > descent window centric workflow without removing the app-centric
>>> > workflow
>>> > out of the design.
>>>
>>> The problem of visible running apps has nothing to do with app-centric
>>> workflow.
>>> Again, your indicator is for running "applications", not running
>>> "windows"!
>>>
>>> I've just sent a mail to the list
>>> "What are the advantages of an application-centric interface?"
>>>
>>> It's gotten a tad bit long (sorry about that) but my main conclusion
>>> was that the discussion app-centric vs. window-centric isn't all that
>>> worthwhile and doesn't really help us improving Unity at this point.
>>>
>>> > And I don't really see a problem in adding the
>>> > configuration options since people will want to be able to configure the
>>> > launcher anyway, we can't take that out of the picture. Some want the
>>> > launcher to be visible at all times and some want it to hide
>>> > automatically.
>>>
>>> Additional "optional options" are a nice thing to have but the
>>> priority is to first get the defaults right as good as we can.
>>>
>>> > I do understand that in practice we may find flaws with this design so I
>>> > was
>>> > thinking of maybe making a JavaScript and HTML mockup in the browser.
>>> > What are your thoughts?
>>>
>>> This is a great idea, I'm no good with JS so I can't help on that.
>>>
>>> > 2011/5/4 Niklas Rosenqvist <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>
>>> >> Is it really necessary to indicate which windows are hidden? I mean if
>>> >> you
>>> >> cannot see it you can assume that it's hidden or somewhere else. Even
>>> >> if it
>>> >> is hidden, it can still be accessed with alt+tab or super+("S" is it?
>>> >> I'm
>>> >> not on a Ubuntu machine at the moment) so there is a minimal practical
>>> >> difference between a window being hidden or not. I'm using Windows 7
>>> >> for
>>> >> games and Adobe Creative Suite and what I can see they don't show which
>>> >> applications are hidden.
>>> >>
>>> >> 2011/5/4 Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Version 0.3:
>>> >>> http://i.imgur.com/O7cfm.png
>>> >>> Sorry...
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
>>> >>> > <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> >>> >> Can't we continue the discussion here since we are already arguing
>>> >>> >> here?
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > I think we should split it then, change the subject to something
>>> >>> > like
>>> >>> > improving Unity for window-centric workflow (was: Idea for improving
>>> >>> > visibility of running applications)
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> >> So what exactly is the mockup showing? Is the wider background box
>>> >>> >> showing
>>> >>> >> the currently focused application and FF and TB are hidden? Please
>>> >>> >> provide
>>> >>> >> us with further explaining of what is what in the mockup since the
>>> >>> >> left
>>> >>> >> launcher is already a configurable option in CCSM. One thing I
>>> >>> >> noted
>>> >>> >> immediately is the lack of the subtle background boxes in the right
>>> >>> >> launcher. I don't think that is a good idea since those boxes gives
>>> >>> >> uniformity to the launcher between the different states when a
>>> >>> >> squared
>>> >>> >> icon
>>> >>> >> set isn't used. I don't think it would work well with the default
>>> >>> >> icon
>>> >>> >> set.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > FF/TB and banshee show two different possible solution for running
>>> >>> > applications: a light thin highlight around the icons or a larger
>>> >>> > rectangle background. I didn't show any mockup for hidden apps. The
>>> >>> > background boxes are more a matter of taste, it works well without
>>> >>> > them for those square icons but it could work for all I think (look
>>> >>> > at
>>> >>> > the Windows and OS X "docks"). But I'm open to that, though at least
>>> >>> > I'd get rid of the highlights at the top and bottom and make them
>>> >>> > more
>>> >>> > bland to increase the difference between highlighted running and
>>> >>> > non-highlighted not running apps.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>> > Here's a new mockup that hopefully answers your points:
>>> >>> > http://i.imgur.com/L55Yk.png
>>> >>> > In case of Design B all background boxes would need to have the same
>>> >>> > size as the color background.
>>> >>> >
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> >>> Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> > Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>