unity-design team mailing list archive

[Bartosz <gang65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi.

I created the bug report for this issue.

Could you please take a look at this?

Best Regards
Bartosz

2012/1/12, Bartosz <gang65@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Hi Guys.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
> I'm not familiar with the Ayatana process, so I have an question:
>
> Is any chance to improve the already opened applications icon look?
> What is official process for this?
> Who take the decision if the feature will be implemented or not?
>
> The "Backlight toggle" idea from me it was only suggestion (it is
> really easy to enable/implement this feature, and it was tested by my
> vision loose friend).
>
> If you don't like it I could suggest something else.
> For example;
>   Change size of backlight in Launcher. If the application is already
> opened the backlight size will be big. If application is not run, then
> backlight will be smaller.
>
> Best Regards
> Bartosz
>
>
> 2012/1/12, Ian Santopietro <isantop@xxxxxxxxx>:
>> Symbolic icons are better used for functions or tasks within an
>> app/application/program (which I here use interchangeably). The back
>> button
>> in a browser.
>>
>> Who said the web browsers are broken? I use two to help stay organized.
>> In
>> one browser, I always have bookmarks, saved passwords and sessions, tabs,
>> history, and auto fill for work, while in the other, I keep personal
>> tabs,
>> bookmarks, passwords, etc.
>>
>> How will the user know which app is set a default anyway? What if they
>> want
>> to change it? Short of looking in the settings or haphazardly opening it
>> to
>> find out, there isn't one.
>>
>> A good UI will balance form and function. You don't want to try and adapt
>> function to fit form; if you have to go one way or the other, it's much
>> better to sacrifice form for function. Symbolic icons are unintuitive and
>> very confusing to new users, and they serve very little function since
>> the
>> current, branded icons are symbolic anyway.
>>
>> --Ian Santopietro
>>
>> "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
>> On Jan 12, 2012 12:58 AM, "frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx" <
>> frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha <jbicha@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> <frederik.nnaji@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons.
>>>>
>>>> It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and
>>>> Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That
>>>> Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good
>>>> thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype
>>>> logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider
>>>> it.
>>>>
>>>
>>> agreed.
>>> that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality.
>>> The functionality can then be executed by a branded app.
>>> Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform,
>>> Unity, rather than "app".
>>> So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an
>>> executor:
>>>
>>> www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...]
>>> instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...]
>>> file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc]
>>>
>>> this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective
>>> functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the
>>> functionality
>>> is clicked.
>>> and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo
>>> copyrights are unharmed.
>>> to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from
>>> the
>>> old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an
>>> end to it with symbolic indicator menus.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does
>>>> > Ayatana
>>>> aim at developing it themselves?
>>>>
>>>> Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity;
>>>> Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And
>>>> of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the
>>>> Design team.
>>>>
>>>> > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is
>>>> "app"
>>>> > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean?
>>>>
>>>> I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current
>>>> buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a
>>>> smartphone app store.
>>>>
>>>
>>> my philosophical rabbit trail, explained:
>>> In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely.
>>> If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will
>>> need
>>> a precise-to-the-core language to do this.
>>> If the wording used to define the system is not precise, the system's
>>> architecture will reflect this imprecision on all structural levels.
>>> Imprecision is an advantage in many situations, especially where you
>>> need
>>> randomness and entropy.
>>> It should be used deliberately, when defining an architecture, which
>>> will
>>> be used by millions of people for many hours of their lives.
>>>
>>> "app" != "application"; application != unequal functionality
>>> symbolic icon maps to functionality
>>> branding icon maps to "executing implementation"
>>>
>>>
>>>> Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm glad that the original poster
>>>> was able to set up Ubuntu relatively easily with larger, more visible
>>>> icons. I agree that the launcher arrows are not obvious enough; maybe
>>>> the designers will try to make them better in the coming weeks.
>>>
>>>
>>> i'm curious to find out what that will feel like..
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> Post to     : ayatana@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>>
>>>
>>
>