unity-design team mailing list archive

["frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx" <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 21:45, balint777@xxxxxxxxx <balint777@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> Dear Ayatana team,
>
> Don't get me wrong, but in the current version of Ubuntu it is not clear,
> what applications are.
>

excellent point.


> We should define what exactly an application from the User's point of view
> is and stay as close as possible to that metaphor. I think, as a user may
> expect: an application is a program wich is by no means part of the system.
>

An application is a way of employing a device, kind of like a "purpose" or
a "use".
A thing is considered useful if it has a purpose aka an application, or
even multiple purposes, uses, applications.
An application is not an icon representing window built on a graphical
toolkit showing buttons and toolbars.

An application of my laptop is for example messaging, another would be
office work, another would be entertainment, and so on and so forth.
Today, the misconception about applications is obvious: we are mislead by
e.g. Apple's misusage of the word "App" as a marketing strategy.
By selling applications as single items in the store, Apple actually
seperates functionality from the core system.

Imitating this behaviour will only make things worse, so thanks for
bringing the topic up, Balint!


>
> - An application is not used for system configuration.
>

exactly, that would be a very special case of "application", if at all.
configuration would rather be "device maintenance".

- An application can be removed from the system without any problems (no
> dependency on it)
>

that's like removing the radio from a car.

- An application is represented by an icon. (This is really important. For
> a developer a program may be an executable, or a package, but a user may
> think the icon he/she sees IS the applicaion - When I was 6, i thought that
> deleting the game's icon deletes the game. I'm sure i'm not alone with
> this.)
>

That's for branded stuff. We live in a world of brands, which unfortunately
reminds me of branding in slavery times. I think a true application doesn't
need a marketing-style icon, it needs a symbolic icon that carries a
semantic value, rather than a marketing one. Symbolic icons for meaningful
applications.
As you scale up, color and shading can be added, but the symbol itself
should already "deliver" when monochrome.


> - Applications are icons, he/she can find in the software center and drag
> to his/her machine (launcher or dash) to get it.
>

ok.


> I would like to have a desktop, where applications show up with
> installation animation, when i buy/download them form the store (like the
> iPhone approach). Where an application gets deleted when I drag it to the
> trash can. Where progressbars, counters and stikers do not only show the
> applications status in the launcher, but everywhere the application appears
> (at least in the dash as well).
>

thank you. An object should indicate its status wherever it is represented.
Representing an object with its status indicated in one place and without
indicating its status in another place is confusing and inconsistent, it
makes the operation of a machine more difficult to learn.


> Where i can find every setting, utility, and system control by typing into
> the search box, but not when browsing for applications.
>

Settings are settings, controls, not applications. Again, language gives us
clear guidelines as to how words need to be interpreted.


> There are a bit wilder ideas about applications which i would like to
> discuss also.
> - When an application is pinned to the launcher, it should disappear form
> the dash. (It makes the application metaphor more clear, with only one
> instance of its icon)
>

I don't know. i'd rather abandon the Launcher entirely on the long run and
do everything Unity in the Dash.
I think the launcher is good as a transitional solution, shiny icon bars on
the desktop are common in Windoze and OSX, plus they look fancy.

- The old Windows 95-style approact of icon is bad. The desktop is no place
> for an application, but for documents and files. ".desktop" files shoud not
> be allowed in the filesystem elsewhere than /usr/share/applications .
>

I think the "desktop" metaphor, as ancient as it is, is retarded, computer
UIs need a major overhaul, if they still build on that metaphor.
We're working with a screen nowadays, it can be layered, it can simulate
spacial depth, therein exploiting better the nature of the human visual
cortex: we see, think and imagine in 3d, not in 2d. In my opinion, it would
be better to consider a screen a screen, a frame a frame and a pointer a
pointer.
The law of correspondence is one that should be respected, if we want to
avoid clutter and noise in our user interface.


> I hope you find some of them useul. Best regards:
> Bálint Csonka
>

thanks a lot for an excellent set of ideas! Very inspiring ;)