Re: [Ayatana] What's up with all the non-resizable windows?

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Stefanos A. wrote on 13/10/11 22:22:
> 
> 2011/10/13 Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx ...
>> Stefanos A. wrote on 13/10/11 15:09:
> ...
>>> Off-hand, I recall the official installer, which cannot be 
>>> resized when the "show details" area does not fit inside the 
>>> window. This happens in the "downloading packages" and " 
>>> installing packages" parts of the installation - since you 
>>> can't resize the window, you cannot see what actions are being 
>>> taken by the installer.
>> 
>> This seems to be <http://launchpad.net/bugs/149911>, which was 
>> reported in 2007, so it's not specific to 11.10.
> 
> In previous versions of the installer I could read messages just 
> fine. In 11.10 I can't, on all three different systems I tested, 
> because there is no space for these messages to appear. This is on 
> the English version, so it's not the bug in your link.


Okay. I wasn't sure, because that bug report doesn't contain a
screenshot, and you haven't reported a bug on Ubiquity since February.

Could you possibly report the bug and attach a screenshot? Thanks.

>>> The new "System Settings" control panel also fits the bill. 
>>> This is *especially* aggravating, since the window is a tad too
>>> big for a 1366x768 or 1280x800 screen (that's what most laptops
>>> use). Today, I had an issue with a misconfigured keyboard
>>> shortcut, so I opened an internet article that described the
>>> fix. In such occasions, I arrange the browser window and the
>>> configuration window side-by-side, so I can refer to the
>>> article while fixing the issue. Or that's what I used to do,
>>> since the new settings window *cannot be resized* to fit
>>> side-by-side on my monitor. It's always there, taking up lots
>>> of space, *covering* the article with the instructions I need.
>> 
>> Like most dialogs, many of the System Settings panels are 
>> designed with a particular size in mind. For the window to be 
>> manually resizable would be inappropriate.
> 
> Why? Why are they designed for a specific size, when that's
> against the Gnome HIG?


That isn't true either. The HIG says that toolboxes should be
resizable, that alerts shouldn't be, and that progress windows should
be in specific cases. It says nothing about the resizability of
settings or Preferences windows. And since the Gnome developers
believe that System Settings shouldn't contain third-party panels (a
misguided belief, but that's another story), the HIG doesn't contain
guidelines for designing panels at all.

> What if I use a larger font or a different screen size?


Ubuntu does not ship a graphical interface for choosing a larger font.
The standard size should be large enough for almost everyone to read
(with people with vision impairments being catered for by magnifiers).

As for screen size, the Ubiquity developers set themselves a minimum
screen size to fit on. (I think it is 1024*600, though I'd have to ask
them.) Sometimes a panel goes beyond that target, and when it does, it
is treated as a bug. The same should be true for System Settings.

>> If the window is too large for an important proportion of 
>> screens, that's a bug that should be fixed, not an excuse for 
>> making the window resizable.
> 
> These "dialogs" were proper resizable windows in 11.04, so this is 
> a regression not an excuse.


Apparently I was unclear. If a window is too large for a screen, then
it is too large for that screen, *regardless of whether it is
resizable*. Resizability is irrelevant to the problem.

> Besides, what is the common thread between a proper "ok, cancel" 
> dialog and something like the "mouse settings" panel or the ubuntu 
> installer? That's a rhetorical question, these things have 
> absolutely *nothing* in common.
> 
> If you have a more convincing argument than "inappropriate" I
> would love to hear it.


Here's how I described it nine years ago:

    *Some* windows are ok to resize, because for those windows, the
    probability that people would resize them deliberately
    multiplied by the benefit from doing so is greater than the
    probability that people would resize them accidentally
    multiplied by the pain from doing so. (The same inequality,
    generalized, should apply to anything which a program allows a
    user to do.)

    For other kinds of window the inequality tips the other way --
    usually as a result of resizing being much less useful, and
    sometimes also as a result of a usability benefit from all
    windows of the same type always being the same size for instant
    recognizability (which increases the pain of resizing them by
    mistake, as they then become less recognizable). Examples of the
    former include properties windows, preference dialogs, and most
    individual control panels; examples of the latter include alerts
    and progress windows.

Almost everyone subscribed to this mailing list (including me) will
routinely underestimate the average cost of making a window resizable
- -- the probability of resizing it accidentally, the confusion caused
as a result, and the difficulty of correcting the mistake.

For a window with multiple tabs, panes, or pages -- such as a settings
window, or an installer -- the calculation becomes even trickier. For
some panes, the benefit of resizability may be greater than the cost.
For other panes, it may not be. So you have to average them out.

For the installer in particular, I think the only screens that would
noticably benefit from resizability would be the wi-fi network
selection, the advanced partitioner, and the time zone map.

The System Settings window takes a hybrid approach. Each panel has its
own height, but they are all designed to a common width, to reduce
interface instability.

>>> What is this new fad? Microsoft abandoned modal/non-resizable 
>>> windows after WinXP.
>> 
>> That isn't true.
> 
> But it is.
> 
> "A /top-level/ window has no owner window and is displayed on the 
> taskbar. Examples: application windows. In Windows Vista and
> later, dialog boxes without owner windows and property sheets are
> also considered top-level."
> 
> From MSDN 
> (http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa511262.aspx)
>
> 
(And parented dialogs are not recommended for new applications.)
> 


None of that has anything to do with whether a window should be resizable!

Here's what that page *does* say about resizability: "Use resizable
windows whenever practical to avoid scroll bars and truncated data."

That is roughly equivalent to (though less precise than) what the
Windows XP guidelines said: "Make your primary windows resizable
unless the information displayed in the window is fixed or cannot be
scaled to provide the user with more information, such as in the
Windows Calculator program."

In neither edition did they venture into topics like multi-page
installers or multi-tab settings windows. And Microsoft almost always
uses non-resizable windows for both those roles.

> ...
> 
> So why was ubuntu installer made non-resizable in the first place?


Because for most of its stages, there is little or no benefit from
resizing it.

- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk6Yvc0ACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecreZQCfbIYfwskXKkJvWEpGOXg9A5hA
OnoAoNOU3imNh3U+BczNSSzX0khBjZt0
=IuRZ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----