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

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

From: Niklas Rosenqvist <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, 4 May 2011 18:39:56 +0200

Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=YlJgLCXhroZf/gRgMnQ57nkHoUfaWeVQkIqHs5v9Aps=; b=LqnR8O3quUG98QJIOR288LkXlh9iwex1D+eeljKa1zhKQCqIIk0McoKfgqr5jwgRgt znKd7O99zrpt6A7Wltk/OqLTyRclzyW0c2zcKUeR8fv+J23iTCyh2z5fI982jMh3x2nP OeFfetSGxJWVp8hPoy6woUI7Y6uoBRXI0VWKc=

Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Wa1pIAyHLy+4In5i0L2k6jjYArdrWJqMxeHoO6mrs5Au9IfTHBcuSeHZ8bm1hpn3Sk KUJkwPmktuSh1+RwFERdSA1J6omhOT04lobStIT8uA8spKqLzsBdsNvep/vwedqf7Zpl vPcO4ok9juTLL34Ng+dSRC1T2y6GtrXNbqOfQ=

In-reply-to: <BANLkTikZAD_VBShFdjGj2gjjcsNKrafm6w@mail.gmail.com>

List-archive: <http://lists.launchpad.net/ayatana>

List-help: <https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp>

List-id: <ayatana.lists.launchpad.net>

List-owner: <https://launchpad.net/~ayatana>

List-post: <mailto:ayatana@lists.launchpad.net>

List-subscribe: <https://launchpad.net/~ayatana>

List-unsubscribe: <https://launchpad.net/~ayatana>

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? 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 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?

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:

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. 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. 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?

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