unity-design team mailing list archive

["balint777@xxxxxxxxx" <balint777@xxxxxxxxx>]

frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx 2011. november 14., hétfő napon a következőt írta:

> On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 21:45, balint777@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', 'balint777@xxxxxxxxx');> <balint777@xxxxxxxxx <javascript:_e({},
> 'cvml', '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.
>

Well, if I wanted a CD player instead, then why couldnt i remove the radio
without causing harm in the 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.
>
>

I don't really get your point here. Every icon carries semantic value, and
that "branding" thing makes people easy to identify the program. I'm sure
you wolud be quite upset if you opened banshee instead of rhythmbox,
because their icon didn't show anything related to their brand/identity
apart from being a music player. It is necessary when ou have thousnds of
applications to choose from. Anyway you're right that the system defaults
should have very semantic icons.


> - 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.
>

Imagine that you have an e-mail application, which is by some reason not
pinned to the launcher. Wouldn't it be nice, when you open up dash it
indicated with a small counter that you have eg. 3 new messages avaiable? I
can imagine the same behaviour with update-manager, or transmission
(indicating there are unfinished downloads). I did not say the current
design is inconsistent. Actually I think the launcher api is getting great,
and could be extended on the dash.


>
>
>> 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.
>

They are currently listed under applications... ("Find files" is rather a
utility. You can call it an application though, but "Shut down" has really
no place there.)


>
>
>> 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 ;)
>

Anyway, thank you for taking the time to reply, Frederik :)


-- 
*Csonka Bálint* @913