unity-design team mailing list archive

[Matthew Paul Thomas <mpt@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

David wrote on 06/12/11 10:05:
> ...
> 
> the basic idea is that when you turn the computer on it shows the 
> minimum of indicators thats possible. 
> http://unity.exemo.net/panel_beginning.png you can expand them by
> clicking on the arrow: http://unity.exemo.net/panel_expanded.png
> 
> ...
> 
>> Why? What problem would it be solving?
> 
> That's a good question (as always ;-))There has been already a lot
> of work done in the top right corner and i don't see any real
> problems with what we currently have. The only thing is that i have
> currently 8 indicators that are always visible. Other users might
> have more or less. I just think that it would look better when you
> have a maximised application and you have less indicators visible. 
> (the minimum possible)


I agree that eight is probably too many by default. There are several
other ways that problem could be reduced or eliminated, without hiding
important status.

First, reduce the number of status menus that appear by default. For
example, the user menu is not that useful, unless people often switch
between multiple user accounts on your computer, so it could be hidden
by default. Similarly, user testing suggests that people don't
understand why webcams and printers are in the device menu; I'd like
to see more user testing of that menu, to see how well people
understand it at all.

Second, provide greater user control of which menus are shown. We'd
like to have a checkbox for each of them in their respective System
Settings panel (like there is already for the clock menu in the Time &
Date settings).

> I think for the same reason that the window buttons are not visible
> when not needet.


Third, introduce a proper standard Full Screen mode, that has no
window frame *or* menu bar, replacing maximized mode altogether. The
current scheme of mixing window buttons, window titles, and menu
titles in the same area of the screen is inconsistent and tacky, and
causes the problem repeatedly shown in user testing where people can't
find menus.

>> If the messaging menu was hidden by default, what use would it
>> be?
> 
> I didn't mean to use the messaging menu like we have it today. More
> something like a list of the latest notifications that you got 
> Looking something like this:
> http://ubuntuone.com/3pQaNx9TdpPXEZHMIjPgdP except not the tabs at
> the bottom


For the purpose of my question, it doesn't matter what's inside the
menu. The menu exists at least partly to show that there *are* new
messages. Maybe that's not worth trying for at all, since it already
didn't work for software updates (though at least an envelope is much
more obvious than any software updates icon could be). But it couldn't
work at all if it was hidden.

>> How do you classify devices under "notification indicators"?
>> What would this notify you of?
> 
> (using the word notifications was not really a good idea from me.) 
> We could show for example an entry for every device where it makes 
> sense. Every entry could contain a menu with actions For example -
> UsbStick - Documents (17) // open gnome-documents - Videos (3) //
> open gnome videos - see all files // open nautilus - Video DVD -
> Watch Movie // open totem - Import or Rip Movie // open ... etc 
> This could remove the need to open a window in situations like
> this:
> 
> "If a new printer is plugged in and recognized automatically while 
> neither a Print dialog nor System Settings (any panel) is open,
> System Settings should open to the Printers panel, the list of
> printers should scroll to show the new printer, and it should be
> selected in the list. (This is analogous to a USB storage device
> window opening when it is connected.)"


So do you think that when a USB storage device is connected, its
window should not open, just a menu should appear? That would be a
very small change.

> ...
> 
>> People didn't see the updates notification area item even when it
>> was shown by default. What use would it be if it was hidden? :-)
> 
> The reason why some people don't see it is in my opinion because
> we have indicators where some people don't care about. Lets say we
> have a user who uses his computer only to look his mails (in gmail)
> and to browse the internet. His first time where he uses ubuntu he
> look around and finds out how to connect to the internet, ... (or a
> friend shows him) But after that the internet connect automatically
> etc and he just look at the top-right to look at the clock and
> maybe adjust the volume when he is in youtube. He simply doesn't
> care about what else is there.
> 
> When i look how it works for example in android: At the top left
> you have the name of your carrier and nothing else When you got 1
> or more notifications the carrier will be replaced with 1 or more
> icons. You now have icons where before where only text. You see
> that immediatly and choose based on the icons if you want to check
> the notification now, later or just clear it. If i am right about
> this people will notice the update-indicator. Because if only the
> things that are important for them are visible and they see an
> unknown icon they will check if its maybe important too? (at least
> i think so)


So far, Android has been successful only on phones -- which have much,
much smaller screens than even small notebook computers. A small icon
appearing on a phone screen is a much bigger change, relatively
speaking, than the same size icon appearing on a notebook screen.

So, it's possible that having many fewer indicator menus visible by
default would make one that did appear significantly more noticable.
But Android doesn't prove that it would.

> ...
> 
>> Why? What would be the use of collecting progress of different
>> tasks into a menu?
> 
> AFAIK there are basicly 2 forms of progress in applications. a: You
> have for example firefox, torrents, ... where you can still use the
> application while tasks (download) is running in the background. b:
> On the other side we have applications that you can no longer use 
> when a task is running. The only reason not to hide the application
> is to look at how many % the task is or to see more details about
> whats happening while a task is running. For example
> update-manager, synaptic, ... I think for "a" it is good because
> you can see how far for example your download is without having to
> switch to firefox.


That can be, and is, already done in the launcher icon. The launcher
is hidden much of the time, but I don't think the solution is to show
progress in a second place as well.

> For "b" developers could offer a feature to hide the application
> and by clicking on the entry in the progress-indicator or when the
> task is finished show the application again.


I doubt it's a good idea to have two different minimize behaviors
depending on whether an application is showing progress. If you
clicked the Minimize button at one moment, it would do one thing, but
if you clicked it a fraction of a second later, it would do the other.

> ...
> 
>> Does that mean it should be shown by default?
> 
> I don't think. But i mentioned it here because someone has maybe a 
> nice idea for that.We could show it as soon as you start an 
> application that can play music.(If there is at least on
> application in Sound-Settings -> Applications)


Part of the rationale for the sound menu is that you don't need to
care whether your music player is running; it works either way.

> ...
> 
> Maybe people who listen a lot of music could put their musicplayer
> in the launcher and start playing music from the quicklist?


Another part of the rationale for the sound menu is that you can start
or stop music, and turn the volume up and down, in the same area of
the interface.

Now, that's not set in stone. We could abandon those features, and
reduce the sound menu to just a volume control (like in Ubuntu 10.04).
But we'd need to know that the change was worth it.

> ...
> 
>> It would be rather strange that a Me menu (that Ubuntu doesn't
>> even have any more!) would be visible by default, but a clock
>> would not.
> 
> With me menu it didn't mean to use it 100% like we had it. That's
> why i added like gnome-shell.


I'm not familiar with the Gnome Shell equivalent. What problem
specifically are you trying to solve?

> What if we would remove the "me menu" and show the clock instead? A
> problem that i see with that approach is that people will not
> expect a menuentry to shut down their pc when clicking at the
> clock. But maybe we could put shutdown at the dashs' first page?


I like that idea. Moving the session exit commands to the Dash home
screen would remove the need for the device menu altogether. However,
the Dash home screen would need to be more accessible than it is now;
you shouldn't have to reveal a launcher to find the button that opens
the overlay that contains the button that opens the dialog that
contains the button that turns off the computer. :-)

- -- 
mpt
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/

iEYEARECAAYFAk7owR4ACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoitgCcCmOHayOucxCw2WgrRPNUm0IQ
V9YAoK1kb/nUaw4/Cb7aNzILoHsOXGJk
=/ChT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----