The point I'm trying to make is that the current panel isn't broken, and moving things like that is just change for the sake of change. When you're trying to build a set and solid identity, that;s not a good thing.
What really makes the bottom edge so ill-suited to placing interface elements? Is it really something that sets it apart from the top edge, or app developers wish not to place UI elements there?
Even if we did open up the top edge as opposed to the bottom edge, where is the guarantee that app developers would take advantage of that and actually use it? Web browsers, for example, seem to be following a tabs on top approach to design. This issue with this design is that unless the user has focus issues, switching tabs should not be the most important controls. And what exactly happens to the title bar if we put the panel on the bottom? Does it move to the bottom? That's quite a large change for very little additional functionality. Alternatively, we can leave the title bar on top, but then that defeats the point behind moving the panel to the bottom in the first place.
Even if we remove the panel, that last point holds true. We aren't opening up the top screen edge, only putting something else there. We may as well leave the panel there, as in it's current form it takes no additional space, and *does* provide functionality, unlike a title bar only or a tab bar.
I haven't seen honeycomb yet. Some guy was hogging the Xoom at the Sprint store I visited on Sunday.
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 15:29, Ed Lin
<edlin280@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 10:39 PM, Ian Santopietro <
isantop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Why can't we let the top panel stay and hold the indicators?
>
> 1. Panels/notification bars are used in *every* major OS (Windows's is odd
> at the bottom), from desktops like Ubuntu and OS X to mobile platforms like
> Android and iOS. It's a very familiar paradigm that people are comfortable
> working with.
>
> 2. The panel can hold lots of functionality (Title bar, notifications, BFB,
> Menu) at a low cost to screen real-estate (~24px, I think)
>
> 3. Removing it requires integrating the indicators with the launcher, which
> is not what either of them were designed for.
>
Why "odd"? it makes much more sense to put less frequently *clicked*
elements to the bottom than to the top! (btw, have you seen
honeycomb?)
Familiarity isn't a good argument because a panel on a screen edge
with a clock and some familiar icons is as familiar on the side as a
panel at the top or bottom. This isn't a question of "paradigms", just
design.
Having said that, I really wouldn't mind a Unity bottom panel that
consists of the launcher items and the classic indicators. In fact I'd
most likely prefer it to any other alternative I've heard so far,
including the two mock-ups of my own or to what's currently available.
Probably not a too popular opinion as everyone would point at it and
say "Windows 7 clone". This brings us to:
2.
It's not about the 24 px, it's about screen edges.
Unity takes up two whole screen edges, it only leaves the remaining
two to app developers. The right side is usually already occupied by a
scroll bar and the lower edge isn't very attractive for putting
controls there apart from image viewers and video players. The top
screen edge is the most valuable space and it should therefore house
the most important controls. Sorry Unity/Ubuntu, that means NOT you ;)
3.)
So? GNOME wasn't designed for a global menu, our western fonts weren't
designed for vertical interfaces...
--