unity-design team mailing list archive

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>]

Den 01. nov. 2011 02:22, skrev James Jenner:
> I wasn't saying that they should require interaction, just saying that 
> interaction could be optional. I don't mind only a keyboard shortcut 
> but to have a mouse option would be nice. In my mind the application 
> should use the framework to provide interaction via the notification, 
> it's up to the framework to decide how the interaction occurs, 
> irrespective of what interaction the framework allows.
Optional means sometimes. Intermittent functionality means confusion. 
Also, for this to be useful, the notifications would have to stay on 
screen permanently. Otherwise, you still wouldn't be able to interact 
with it unless you reacted quickly. Thunderbird has or had this. I hated 
the way it made me feel like the computers property. "Stop everything 
you're doing right now, because you only have ten seconds to comply with 
this notification". I was just waiting for it to tell me something like 
"This user has performed an illegal operation and must go to bed 
hungry". Not good! :)
> The reason I though of it is because under my XP environment at work I 
> get notified when an email is received, including the title and 
> possibly the first line of the email. The same thing for various chat 
> clients, I can set them to show me a notification that I have received 
> a message and I can ignore the notification or I can click on it to 
> automatically open it. It's something I find quite useful and use a 
> lot, especially at work when I often have 10+ windows open. If I 
> couldn't click on it, then for the email I would have to open the 
> email application and double click the first email (or single click if 
> I have a preview pane). It's nice to be able to click on the notification.
You get a notification which does not require nor accept any actions. 
However, directly above the notification, you have a permanent reminder 
that there is something to react to. Click it, and you'll see a list of 
recent notifications and clicking it will show the appropriate 
application in the appropriate way. So the feature is actually there, 
only implemented in a less obtrusive way. If you're been away from your 
keyboard for a while, then you can click once to get a full overview in 
a list and react to the things you like, instead of having to close lots 
of notifications.

> I hadn't thought about the issue of an accidental click on an 
> actionable notification. I can see this is a potential issue, however 
> I cannot remember a time in the last six years of using my current 
> environment at work where I can accidentally clicked on a 
> notification. I should say that for XP, the notification is the bottom 
> left corner of the screen which doesn't get much mouse activity 
> generally speaking.
That something happens infrequently is probably _the_ biggest problem in 
IT. "I clicked the search field in Nautilus and then my system 
restarted". Because the notification was that you needed to reboot for 
the updates to be installed. But because that would happen so very 
infrequently, the user would never get that answered and the bug would 
never be closed.

> Hmm notifications and indicators. I wouldn't use an indicator to tell 
> you that you have a new message in a chat panel, or to tell you that 
> someone pm'd you in a lobby for a game, however a notification would 
> seem appropriate (specially for games where you may be running full 
> screen). 
You shouldn't choose between them. When you get an email, then you 
should get a short notification that doesn't accept any action, and you 
should get a permanent indication that both accepts and invites the 
proper actions.

> It seems to me that a notification affords clicking to open 
> information about the notification or to activate the application 
> related to the notification. While I don't mind the 'vibrating' icon 
> in the launchers, it's disconnected with the notification in that the 
> notification is on the right and the vibrating icon is on the other 
> side of the sceen and most prob. at a different hight. The focus of 
> the user has to change and if you have an application that intrudes on 
> the launchers then you won't even see the launcher. 

I don't really understand what you mean by intrusion in this context. 
You're supposed to add those statuses for apps, but they're statuses you 
look for. You can press and hold super to get an overview. How far have 
that file copy process come, how many unread emails to I have, how many 
updates, how long until the update is complete, etc. So they're not not 
notifications, they're not indications, but they're statuses that you 
actively look for. In  other words, these are four separate ways of 
displaying information.

> You would have to move the mouse over, wait for the launcher to 
> appear, scan the launcher to find the appropriate application and then 
> select the app (more complicated if you have more than one instance 
> open?).
I think the urgent window would be opened first. At least I think that 
should be the case.

> I cannot test right now (as I'm at work) but does a notification stop 
> you from clicking on something behind it?
Yes, the whole point of making the notifications that way is that you 
get notified, but you continue to do what you're doing, so it's only 
presented for a short time and goes away. You can't click notifications. 
The clicks will go to the app underneath. The indicator is there so you 
don't forget. That's where you handle the thing that's happened, but you 
do it when you feel it's right to do so, not when the computer tells you 
to.

> I should note that accessibility should be considered as well (I'm 
> thinking of quadriplegics and paraplegics who have dexterity issues).

Absolutely, and that's what the keyboard is for. Press F10 to focus 
menus, navigate with arrow keys and activate items by pressing enter.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad