<
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
>
>