unity-design team mailing list archive

[Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx>]

In that case, maybe taking another cue from Android would be apt. Don't
remove applications from RAM unless they aren't running. Then, automatically
remove older ones to make room for newly launched apps. That might help
improve performance on older systems anyway.

On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 09:27, Niklas Rosenqvist <
niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I personally like to know what's running and what's not. That way I can
> terminate unwanted applications in case I should need more RAM or reduce the
> load on the CPU. By the user knowing what applications are running you give
> him the freedom to do what he wants with them. I don't think it should be
> hidden from the user.
>
>
> 2011/5/3 Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx>
>
>> I would argue that a user shouldn't need to know what's running. If they
>> want to work with an application, they switch to it, running or not, and it
>> comes back as they left it, running or not. It's a distinctly mobile thing
>> to do, and it is probably not technically feasible right now, but think
>> about a smartphone. Applications never really "Close" (or they shouldn't.
>> Think Android Browser or Music Player). Most web browsers have already
>> implemented this in some form or another as a "restore my session" option
>> (or similar), and it's one of the first things I set.
>>
>> Maybe there is some way to get a framework for saving an application's
>> state and using that to restore, providing this functionality to any
>> application? Saving the application state as a swapfile maybe?
>>
>>  On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 08:54, Niklas Rosenqvist <
>> niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>>  Ed Lin please review the comments and answers I've provided:
>>>
>>> "You can't see what's running at a glance without hovering the
>>> launcher. Why? Does it make sense for the user? Does it increase
>>>  usability? I doubt so, it's just for aesthetic reasons."
>>>
>>> There you just pointed to the exact problem I'm trying to address! If you
>>> look at the first frame of the mockup you see the current setup, the
>>> programs that are running have an illuminated background together with the
>>> arrow on the left side. But that illuminated background is hard to see due
>>> to the icon set.
>>>
>>> "Icons are completely desaturated, this makes finding what you are
>>> looking for more difficult. Only shape, not color is different, now
>>>  imagine working on a glossy screen outdoors."
>>>
>>> Usually, at least for me, people know the location of a launcher without
>>> seeing it. E.g. I know that "home" is on top, then comes firefox,
>>> thunderbird, liferea feed reader, playonlinux, banshee, etc. And the dream
>>> situation would to have this as a configurable option to turn this feature
>>> on or off, depending on if you think it's required with your icon set.
>>>
>>>
>>>  "I think both can be solved with one solution: make the icons
>>>  darker/more transparent but keep the color."
>>>
>>> Together with the above setting for turning this feature on or off a
>>> simple slider could be implemented to set how many percent the icons should
>>> be grayed out.
>>>
>>>  "However I'd reserve that for hidden applications and instead add a
>>>  glow effect like GNOME 3 for running applications."
>>>
>>> ... That is exactly how it is implemented right now ... haven't you even
>>> tried tweaking Unity with CCSM?
>>>
>>> 2011/5/3 Ed Lin <edlin280@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
>>>>
>>>> <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> > Here I have the finished mockup of how this configurable feature could
>>>> > work. For the future, what is the best way to share images with the
>>>> > ayatana mailing list? Is it by attaching the image to the email or
>>>> > upload it like I've done now?
>>>> >
>>>> > Here is the link:
>>>> > http://i.imgur.com/bnIAE.png
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Two things:
>>>> You can't see what's running at a glance without hovering the
>>>> launcher. Why? Does it make sense for the user? Does it increase
>>>> usability? I doubt so, it's just for aesthetic reasons.
>>>>
>>>> Icons are completely desaturated, this makes finding what you are
>>>> looking for more difficult. Only shape, not color is different, now
>>>> imagine working on a glossy screen outdoors.
>>>>
>>>> I think both can be solved with one solution: make the icons
>>>> darker/more transparent but keep the color.
>>>> However I'd reserve that for hidden applications and instead add a
>>>> glow effect like GNOME 3 for running applications. Actually, I'm not
>>>> convinced the visibility of running apps needs to be improved at all.
>>>>
>>>> The whole point of a dock is to blur the line between starting apps
>>>> and switching to apps (abstract it away from the user). If you
>>>> disagree with this decision the dock isn't for you (install tint2 or
>>>> something).
>>>> Or remove all icons from the launcher and exclusively use the dash for
>>>> launching.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Ian Santopietro
>>
>> "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
>
>


-- 
Ian Santopietro

"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