On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 20:31, Spike Burch <spi...@gmail.com> wrote: > The idea of having the boxes around the icons be clear when not > running and colored when running is a good one. the fading bit is too > distracting.
Another approach for showing which applications are started could be to decrease the icon size of the not running apps. Or modify the place where the icons are drawn : for example move them N pixels to the right . > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:40 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist > <niklas.s.rosenqv...@gmail.com> wrote: >> "But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the >> background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility >> with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover, >> i.e. more consistent and more usable." >> >> The reason for why I don't think that's such a good idea is because there's >> a risk there will be too much going on on the launcher together with >> colorful icons, counters and progress bars. Therefore I believe the solution >> is to tune down the noise and not add more, this will provide a cleaner >> interface. >> I just finished my JS and HTML mockup and I feel that it works very good in >> practice. Don't expect it to be completely bug free because I did it quick >> and dirty to just have something to show you guys. It basically works in all >> new browsers so feel free to try it out. Though if you click around like >> crazy there's a chance the icons don't change as they should. >> Mockup: >> http://unity-mockup.nsrosenqvist.com/ >> Source: >> http://unity-mockup.nsrosenqvist.com/source/unity-mockup.zip >> 2011/5/4 Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 6:39 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist >>> <niklas.s.rosenqv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> > I think it would be a shame to desaturate the applications which aren't >>> > running at all times. If you have the launcher set to always visible and >>> > only one application running then it would look dark and boring, don't >>> > you >>> > think? >>> >>> Not only the looks, I think desaturated icons don't look exactly >>> inviting to a new user. They more look like either hidden or even >>> crashed applications, not like launchers. I'm repeating myself, but >>> this problem isn't actually solved by making that view hover only. >>> Just the first part (the looks) is made a bit less glaring. >>> >>> > And as I said in my previous post, I can't really see the use in >>> > showing which applications are hidden. It has never been deemed >>> > necessary, >>> > not in Windows and in Gnome 2.x it's only shown with a pair of "[ ]" >>> > around the application name, and I've honestly really thought about that >>> > 'til now . >>> >>> That's because neither OS had a concept of hidden applications. It >>> doesn't even exist in Unity yet. But it exits in OS X and the >>> transparent hidden icons for the Dock is a frequently used option >>> there. Just google "defaults write com.apple.Dock showhidden -bool >>> YES" and check how many results you get. >>> >>> >>> > That is why I'm still convinced that my original idea is the best >>> > proposed solution so far. As Ed Lin pointed out it might be a problem in >>> > getting the launcher to react on hover, but wouldn't it benefit the UX >>> > (User >>> > Experience) greatly? Isn't it worth it? >>> >>> But please tell me one reason why increasing the visibility of the >>> background of running apps isn't just as good in terms of visibility >>> with the added benefit of being always visible, not just on hover, >>> i.e. more consistent and more usable. >>> >>> > Some didn't like that the icons greyed out completely and I understand >>> > that >>> > and that's why I proposed a configuration option for that. If we just >>> > take a >>> > look on how it would look like if it wasn't completely greyed out and >>> > only >>> > partially desaturated the idea might feel more approachable. That's why >>> > I >>> > created a new version of my previous mockup: >>> > >>> > http://i.imgur.com/3bajD.png >>> >>> Much better, but this still leaves above 2 questions. >>> >>> > Please just give it some reconsideration out of the UX-perspective. If >>> > this >>> > was an option then I feel that this would be enough to provide a start >>> > for a >>> > descent window centric workflow without removing the app-centric >>> > workflow >>> > out of the design. >>> >>> The problem of visible running apps has nothing to do with app-centric >>> workflow. >>> Again, your indicator is for running "applications", not running >>> "windows"! >>> >>> I've just sent a mail to the list >>> "What are the advantages of an application-centric interface?" >>> >>> It's gotten a tad bit long (sorry about that) but my main conclusion >>> was that the discussion app-centric vs. window-centric isn't all that >>> worthwhile and doesn't really help us improving Unity at this point. >>> >>> > And I don't really see a problem in adding the >>> > configuration options since people will want to be able to configure the >>> > launcher anyway, we can't take that out of the picture. Some want the >>> > launcher to be visible at all times and some want it to hide >>> > automatically. >>> >>> Additional "optional options" are a nice thing to have but the >>> priority is to first get the defaults right as good as we can. >>> >>> > I do understand that in practice we may find flaws with this design so I >>> > was >>> > thinking of maybe making a JavaScript and HTML mockup in the browser. >>> > What are your thoughts? >>> >>> This is a great idea, I'm no good with JS so I can't help on that. >>> >>> > 2011/5/4 Niklas Rosenqvist <niklas.s.rosenqv...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> Is it really necessary to indicate which windows are hidden? I mean if >>> >> you >>> >> cannot see it you can assume that it's hidden or somewhere else. Even >>> >> if it >>> >> is hidden, it can still be accessed with alt+tab or super+("S" is it? >>> >> I'm >>> >> not on a Ubuntu machine at the moment) so there is a minimal practical >>> >> difference between a window being hidden or not. I'm using Windows 7 >>> >> for >>> >> games and Adobe Creative Suite and what I can see they don't show which >>> >> applications are hidden. >>> >> >>> >> 2011/5/4 Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> >>> Version 0.3: >>> >>> http://i.imgur.com/O7cfm.png >>> >>> Sorry... >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Ed Lin <edlin...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> > On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 11:47 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist >>> >>> > <niklas.s.rosenqv...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >> Can't we continue the discussion here since we are already arguing >>> >>> >> here? >>> >>> > >>> >>> > I think we should split it then, change the subject to something >>> >>> > like >>> >>> > improving Unity for window-centric workflow (was: Idea for improving >>> >>> > visibility of running applications) >>> >>> > >>> >>> >> So what exactly is the mockup showing? Is the wider background box >>> >>> >> showing >>> >>> >> the currently focused application and FF and TB are hidden? Please >>> >>> >> provide >>> >>> >> us with further explaining of what is what in the mockup since the >>> >>> >> left >>> >>> >> launcher is already a configurable option in CCSM. One thing I >>> >>> >> noted >>> >>> >> immediately is the lack of the subtle background boxes in the right >>> >>> >> launcher. I don't think that is a good idea since those boxes gives >>> >>> >> uniformity to the launcher between the different states when a >>> >>> >> squared >>> >>> >> icon >>> >>> >> set isn't used. I don't think it would work well with the default >>> >>> >> icon >>> >>> >> set. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > FF/TB and banshee show two different possible solution for running >>> >>> > applications: a light thin highlight around the icons or a larger >>> >>> > rectangle background. I didn't show any mockup for hidden apps. The >>> >>> > background boxes are more a matter of taste, it works well without >>> >>> > them for those square icons but it could work for all I think (look >>> >>> > at >>> >>> > the Windows and OS X "docks"). But I'm open to that, though at least >>> >>> > I'd get rid of the highlights at the top and bottom and make them >>> >>> > more >>> >>> > bland to increase the difference between highlighted running and >>> >>> > non-highlighted not running apps. >>> >>> > >>> >>> > Here's a new mockup that hopefully answers your points: >>> >>> > http://i.imgur.com/L55Yk.png >>> >>> > In case of Design B all background boxes would need to have the same >>> >>> > size as the color background. >>> >>> > >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >>> >>> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net >>> >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >>> >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> >> >>> > >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >>> > Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net >>> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >>> > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >>> > >>> > >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >>> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net >>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >>> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
