On Wed, 2011-05-25 at 01:00 +0200, Niklas Rosenqvist wrote:
> 2011/5/25 Ian Santopietro <
isantop@xxxxxxxxx>
> > 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?
>
>
>
> The thing is that they already are. The majority of applications have
> a top-down element priority design, e.g. browsers. Almost all browsers
> today have their tabs on the very top of the application and why is
> that? Since it's much more effective to switch between them when they
> are so close to the screen edge and for me is tab-switching the most
> used function of a browser except for actually reading the content of
> a page.
>
>
> Photoshop for example makes great use of the screen edges since the
> menu is located at the top, the tools at the left, and the different
> windows at the right. If all UI-elements were located below the canvas
> the work flow would be severely crippled. The use of edges is really
> important in design, both for usability and framing content.
>
>
> Since the top-down priority is most often used it makes perfect sense
> for the design choice that Windows have, the task bar located at the
> bottom of the screen by default.
>
>
> I hope that you now understand why we try to get rid of the top panel,
> you may not agree but hopefully see our point.
>
> 2011/5/25 Ian Santopietro <
isantop@xxxxxxxxx>
> � � � � 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.
> � � � � � � � � >
>
>
> � � � � � � � � 1.)
> � � � � � � � � 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...
>
> � � � � � � � � _______________________________________________
> � � � � � � � � Mailing list:
https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> � � � � � � � � Post to � � :
ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> � � � � � � � � Unsubscribe :
https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> � � � � � � � � More help � :
https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
>
>
> � � � � --
> � � � � Ian Santopietro
>
> � � � � Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> � � � � See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
>
> � � � � "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast
> � � � � �Ofer middangeard monnum sended"
>
> � � � � Pa gur yv y porthaur?
>
>
> � � � � Public GPG key
> � � � � (RSA):
http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234
>
>
>
> � � � � _______________________________________________
> � � � � 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
