-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Conscious User wrote on 30/11/11 20:08: > >>> Which reminds me, shouldn't we stop pretending that synchronous >>> and asynchronous notifications are similar enough to deserve >>> being close? They are not, and the current approach causes more >>> problems than solves. >> >> What problems does it cause? > > The most obvious one is the ugly gap when no synchronous > notification is being shown. But I personally think that making > synchronous and asynchronous informations have the same appearance > and positioning is a mistake by itself. > > One is to notify and is supposed to call the user's attention. The > other one is to provide feedback and is something that the user > expects to appear. So much visual similarity for such different > things is confusing.
Fair enough. >> What problems does it solve? > > I am *supposing* that the idea is concentrating all notifications > in a single place of the screen, thus simplifying things for the > user. But this only makes sense if their purpose is similar enough > to deserve such concentration, and I don't think they are. I don't remember that there was ever a conscious decision about whether they should be presented the same way. (That's not covered in the specification's Rationale, at least.) It was just assumed that they should be. > I do admit that the positioning is good when changing the volume > with the scrollwheel, but that's the only case I can think of. > >>> If we must insist that their appearance must be the same, then >>> the synchronous bubbles should at least be moved to somewhere >>> else, like the lower corner (they can be there with no >>> problems, since their size is fixed) >> >> In December 2009 I drew up some possible alternative >> placements.<https://wiki.ubuntu.com/NotifyOSD#position> > > Ops, sorry. I'm using the old "sync vs. async" terminology when I > should be using "confirmation vs. notification". > > Anyway, is it my impression or the current placement is not even > considered a valid one according to the specification? Correct. > Option 3 is by far my favorite. I remember Option 2 being tested > and receiving some bad feedback (of questionable value, though, as > I remember it was available for a very short period of time) > > Are there any reasons for not testing option 3? Only that no-one has implemented it. >>> But I don't think even the appearance should be the same. In >>> the attached screenshot you can see what appears when I click >>> the play button when no player is open (I suppose it's a bug >>> that notify-osd is not handling this), and in my opinion is >>> much better. >> >> Why do you think it's better? >> >> (I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on any of these, but we >> need to be able to explain *why* something is worse or better.) > > It's visually and positionally different enough to not be confused > with async notifications, and provides a very clear feedback. And > at least in my opinion the exposition time is short enough to avoid > intrusiveness (like volume gauges on TVs) > > ... And with a more transparent appearance, it could be even less intrusive. - -- mpt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk7mQQcACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecokpgCdHYmoG7cDQfRiKCRddcX0shoM SfkAn2SUgJxgNrEov7Ihg4+28AFArOqc =0Fmi -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
