unity-design team mailing list archive

[Niklas Rosenqvist <niklas.s.rosenqvist@xxxxxxxxx>]

 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
>
>