[Ayatana] unity dash lens buttons: move to top. expand filters by default.

[staticd]

1)The latest dash (with 11.10) has a list of lenses at the bottom-
center.
The icons for each lens(home, apps, files, music)are kinda small and non
obvious as to their purpose.
IMHO, both novices and experienced users will find it more useful if the
lens buttons were accompanied by a name and were above the search bar
(minimum mouse movement from clicking the dash button, visually
obvious).

  | [icon]Home | [icon]Apps |
[icon] FIles&Folders | [Icon] Music|
|Search bar|

2)New users tend to browse for installed apps.
It might be useful if the filter results list is expanded by default
. presents a familiar/ simple method to browse.
-- 
This message was sent from Launchpad by
staticd (https://launchpad.net/~staticd-growthecommons)
using the "Contact this team" link on the Ayatana Discussion team page
(https://launchpad.net/~ayatana).
For more information see
https://help.launchpad.net/YourAccount/ContactingPeople

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!

[Thibaut Brandscheid]

2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas 

>
> What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of
> the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu,
> Windows, and OS X.
>
> 
>
> We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also
> size and padding of interface controls.
>

 Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor in
Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric.

   - Ubuntu 
   - Windows 7 

Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface
looks & feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows
seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized
windows).

Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem controls)
and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last cycles).

So what to do?

   - Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons and
   that much padding/margin
  - use the same padding/margin in every application if possible
  - Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference


Kind regards
Thibaut

PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win & and Mac and could make more comparison
screenshots it would be awesome.
I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;)
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!

[Tomasz Sałaciński]

I've created such a comparsion.

First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit).

Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup 
program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade).


See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than 
Ubuntu fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem 
with size that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on 
research what font size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them 
change the size of the font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users 
satisfied (maybe more, not counting Macs) with the font we see in 
Windows. Even with a lot less userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining 
about font size.


Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll 
every few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It 
hurts your eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside.


Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at 
the screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for 
listening to music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just 
stick to using Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, 
windows in Ubuntu are a lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by 
design, then the design is simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy 
all users, but you should try satisfying most user's needs, instead of 
personal preferences of the designers.


W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze:

2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas mailto:m...@canonical.com>>


What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of
the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu,
Windows, and OS X.



We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also
size and padding of interface controls.


  Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor
in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric.

  * Ubuntu 
  * Windows 7 

Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface
looks & feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows
seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized
windows).

Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem
controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last
cycles).

So what to do?

  * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons
and that much padding/margin
  o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible
  * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference


Kind regards
Thibaut

PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win & and Mac and could make more comparison
screenshots it would be awesome.
I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;)


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


--
Tomasz Sałaciński
<>___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Proposes to change launcher's behaviour with multiple windows

[John Lea]

On 19/10/11 14:43, Evan Huus wrote:
On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Matt Richardson 
> wrote:


I received this a few days ago so hopefully it should be fixed:

- snip -

* Tags added: udp

** Changed in: ayatana-design
Status: Fix Released =>  Fix Committed


This means only that the actual design desired here is not final, and 
will (hopefully) be discussed at the Ubuntu Developer Summit for 12.04.


Status in Unity:
   Triaged
Status in "unity" package in Ubuntu:
   Triaged

The actual status of the bug is just 'triaged'. The bug will not 
actually be 'fixed' until these statuses change to 'Fix Released'.


The way Ayatana uses launchpad tasks is not always immediately 
intuitive. Sorry for the confusion.


Evan


Correct, you need to look at the 'unity' project on bugs to track 
implementation status.  The good news on this one is that Jason is 
currently targeting this bug for unity 4.26.0 "SRU1" so hopefully it 
will be fixed soon.


thanks for the bug report!

cheers,
John


--
John Lea | Ubuntu Desktop User Experience Lead
Canonical  www.canonical.com | Ubuntu  www.ubuntu.com
27th Floor, 21-24 Millbank Tower, London, SW1P 4QP
Tel: +44 (0) 20 7630 2415 | Email: john@canonical.com

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!

[Tadej Rosa]

I feel I should point out that at least in my case, Windows 7 has, after a
fresh install, always defaulted to the "125% bigger" font preset. My monitor
is a 4:3 20in HP, 1600x1200. DPI as I recall is just about 100. I always
prefer to set the fonts to the default setting (100%), but it doesn't seem
to be the default. YMMV

For what it's worth- on my hardware I don't mind the default font and
padding size in Ubuntu, but on anything smaller than my laptop's 1400x1050 I
imagine it would become annoying pretty fast.

TR

2011/10/20 Tomasz Sałaciński 

> I've created such a comparsion.
>
> First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit).
>
> Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup
> program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade).
>
> See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than
> Ubuntu fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with
> size that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what
> font size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of
> the font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more,
> not counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less
> userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size.
>
> Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every
> few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your
> eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside.
>
> Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at
> the screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening
> to music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using
> Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a
> lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is
> simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try
> satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the
> designers.
>
> W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze:
>
>> 2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas > >
>>
>>
>>
>>What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of
>>the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu,
>>Windows, and OS X.
>>
>>
>>
>>We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also
>>size and padding of interface controls.
>>
>>
>>  Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor
>> in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric.
>>
>>  * Ubuntu 
>> 
>> >
>>  * Windows 7 
>> 
>> >
>>
>>
>> Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface
>> looks & feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows
>> seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized
>> windows).
>>
>> Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem
>> controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last
>> cycles).
>>
>> So what to do?
>>
>>  * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons
>>and that much padding/margin
>>  o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible
>>  * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference
>>
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Thibaut
>>
>> PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win & and Mac and could make more comparison
>> screenshots it would be awesome.
>> I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;)
>>
>>
>> __**_
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> More help   : 
>> https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelp
>>
>
> --
> Tomasz Sałaciński
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!

[Ian Santopietro]

The letters in the Segoe example run together, and in My opinion are a
bit harder to read than the Ubuntu example. In addition to this, they
look clearer because of improper hinting settings, which detracts from
the visual appearance of the characters and also makes them harder to
read.

2011/10/20 Tomasz Sałaciński :
> I've created such a comparsion.
>
> First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit).
>
> Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup
> program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade).
>
> See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than Ubuntu
> fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with size
> that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what font
> size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of the
> font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more, not
> counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less
> userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size.
>
> Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every
> few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your
> eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside.
>
> Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at the
> screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening to
> music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using
> Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a
> lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is
> simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try
> satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the
> designers.
>
> W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze:
>>
>> 2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas > >
>>
>>
>>    What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of
>>    the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu,
>>    Windows, and OS X.
>>
>>    
>>
>>    We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also
>>    size and padding of interface controls.
>>
>>
>>  Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor
>> in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric.
>>
>>  * Ubuntu 
>>  * Windows 7 
>>
>> Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface
>> looks & feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows
>> seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized
>> windows).
>>
>> Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem
>> controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last
>> cycles).
>>
>> So what to do?
>>
>>  * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons
>>    and that much padding/margin
>>      o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible
>>  * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference
>>
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Thibaut
>>
>> PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win & and Mac and could make more comparison
>> screenshots it would be awesome.
>> I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;)
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> Post to     : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
> --
> Tomasz Sałaciński
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to     : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>



-- 
Ian Santopietro

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

"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

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!

[Tomasz Sałaciński]

They are *slightly* harder to read because they're very small (9pt). 
Ubuntu should use Ubuntu 10, not 11. Remember, that such huge font makes 
working on smaller screens very annoying (no window will fit the screen, 
or will force user to scroll/move windows), working on bigger screen 
makes fonts very, very big.


W dniu 2011-10-20 16:34, Ian Santopietro pisze:

The letters in the Segoe example run together, and in My opinion are a
bit harder to read than the Ubuntu example. In addition to this, they
look clearer because of improper hinting settings, which detracts from
the visual appearance of the characters and also makes them harder to
read.

2011/10/20 Tomasz Sałaciński:

I've created such a comparsion.

First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit).

Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup
program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade).

See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than Ubuntu
fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with size
that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what font
size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of the
font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more, not
counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less
userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size.

Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every
few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your
eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside.

Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at the
screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening to
music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using
Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a
lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is
simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try
satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the
designers.

W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze:


2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomasmailto:m...@canonical.com>>


What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of
the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu,
Windows, and OS X.



We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also
size and padding of interface controls.


  Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor
in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric.

  * Ubuntu
  * Windows 7

Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface
looks&  feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows
seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized
windows).

Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem
controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last
cycles).

So what to do?

  * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons
and that much padding/margin
  o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible
  * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference


Kind regards
Thibaut

PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win&  and Mac and could make more comparison
screenshots it would be awesome.
I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;)


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp


--
Tomasz Sałaciński

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp








--
Tomasz Sałaciński

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login

[Matthew Paul Thomas]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi folks

For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or
documents every time they log in.

(For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat,
Firefox, and a time sheet text document.)

Every version of Ubuntu has had a "Startup Applications" settings
window for choosing applications to open automatically at login.

Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window
(gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular
settings.

So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System
Settings window. My design extends the existing "User Accounts" panel;
this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot
login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest
account. It also allows opening files, not just applications.

I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.


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

iEYEARECAAYFAk6gP2sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoWiACgvXz7AU7WCnKLQQe3JLdAMMiv
e+QAn0ziqngFlwI4G8Et3EDDnEGHBInU
=f3De
-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

Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login

[tommy]

It would be nice if this panel could have option to start the 
application minimized - for example Empathy, Skype or Pidgin.


And a feature, which I think some users will find useful - startup 
applications added by system administrator (that cannot be deleted by 
ordinary user) - for example some scripts that will log something, or 
download something to the desktop.


W dniu 2011-10-20 17:34, Matthew Paul Thomas pisze:

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

Hi folks

For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or
documents every time they log in.

(For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat,
Firefox, and a time sheet text document.)

Every version of Ubuntu has had a "Startup Applications" settings
window for choosing applications to open automatically at login.

Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window
(gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular
settings.

So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System
Settings window. My design extends the existing "User Accounts" panel;
this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot
login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest
account. It also allows opening files, not just applications.

I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.


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

iEYEARECAAYFAk6gP2sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoWiACgvXz7AU7WCnKLQQe3JLdAMMiv
e+QAn0ziqngFlwI4G8Et3EDDnEGHBInU
=f3De
-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


--
tommy

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Ayatana] Fwd: Re: New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login

[Matt Richardson]

Sorry, forgot to reply to list

 Original Message 
Subject: 	Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents 
automatically at login

Date:   Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:18:37 +0100
From:   Matt Richardson 
To: Matthew Paul Thomas 



Isn't this functionality still provided by the "Startup Applications"
function of the Power Cog menu?
I use that to start Thunderbird and Firefox at login.

Matt

On 20/10/11 16:34, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:

 -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
 Hash: SHA1

 Hi folks

 For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or
 documents every time they log in.

 (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat,
 Firefox, and a time sheet text document.)

 Every version of Ubuntu has had a "Startup Applications" settings
 window for choosing applications to open automatically at login.

 Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window
 (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular
 settings.

 So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System
 Settings window. My design extends the existing "User Accounts" panel;
 this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot
 login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest
 account. It also allows opening files, not just applications.

 I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
 

 Cheers
 - -- 
 mpt

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

 iEYEARECAAYFAk6gP2sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoWiACgvXz7AU7WCnKLQQe3JLdAMMiv
 e+QAn0ziqngFlwI4G8Et3EDDnEGHBInU
 =f3De
 -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




___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login

[Jeremy Bicha]

On 20 October 2011 11:34, Matthew Paul Thomas  wrote:
> I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
> 

I like porting Nautilus's "Open with Other Application" chooser to the
Login Items screen. The current Add button in Startup Applications is
rather un-user-friendly, especially if one clicks the Browse button.

GNOME has really overloaded the "Shell" term. I'd suggest renaming
"Add Shell Command" to something like "Add Custom Command". In your
mockup of the "Add Shell Command" dialog, you show a file folder; I
think that's a bad idea as the file-browser isn't really a good way to
look for shell commands. If it's not too difficult to add, bash
auto-completion would be cool though.

Some examples of custom shell commands are "chromium-browser
--incognito" or "transmission-gtk -m" (to start Transmission
minimized).

A drop-down box for the + button is new to GNOME, isn't it?

As a side point, I think if  "Name & Photo" & "Security" are 2
separate subpanels, then those subpanels would be mostly empty.

Jeremy

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login

[Evan Huus]

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas  
wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi folks
>
> For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or
> documents every time they log in.
>
> (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat,
> Firefox, and a time sheet text document.)
>
> Every version of Ubuntu has had a "Startup Applications" settings
> window for choosing applications to open automatically at login.
>
> Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window
> (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular
> settings.
>
> So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System
> Settings window. My design extends the existing "User Accounts" panel;
> this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot
> login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest
> account. It also allows opening files, not just applications.
>
> I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
> 

Very nice, I quite like it!

One thing that I would like it to support is mounting partitions. I
have my music on a separate internal NTFS partition so that it can be
accessed by Windows. At the moment, the first thing I have to do when
I log in is browse to that folder in Nautilus so that it gets mounted
(by gvfs?). The only way currently to have a partition auto-mount on
login is via /etc/fstab, which affects all users and requires root
access.

An "Add Partition..." option below the "Add Shell Command..." option
would be absolutely fantastic. (Obviously the label and location are
subject to change).

Just my two cents,
Evan

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions

[topdownjimmy]

[Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an
email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.]

I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of
Ayatana, but this list is my best guess.

Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long
as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an
acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an
acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for
this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed
to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial,
Times New Roman, and Courier New).
(http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/)

However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not
as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are
paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04
(http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font
substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though
these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as
they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore
(e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed
to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and
Times.

A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web;
so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are
rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac
OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look
*right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that "Linux has
bad fonts." This becomes even more important as so much of what people
do on a computer now is within the browser.

Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the
web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts
called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!),
Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that
calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu
user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these
alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu
Sans, which is a "close enough" approximation of Verdana, as far as
free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of
Lucida.)

In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but
currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply
much greater versatility for fonts on the web:

* Georgia -  Bitstream Charter
* Verdana - DejaVu Sans
* Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable]
* Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius]
* Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald]
* Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core]
* Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna
[ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis]
* Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman
* Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter]

Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would
increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math,
but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others
aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that
make some of these packages not technically "free," but I haven't
researched that.

Things *do* look more "authentic" with the msttcorefonts package
installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be
included on the install disc.

Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to
DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows
they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to
the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif
are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is
really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be
Liberation.

In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the
typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoughts?

-Jay

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login

[Omar B .]

I like where things are going here, but wouldn't it be better to have a 
"remember session(s)" option (currently xfce, kde, etc. have it), also kde has 
"Activities" which is really great feature, is like having multiple user 
sessions with its own preferences, but very easy to manage, add , delete, stop 
,etc.


> From: eapa...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:50:57 -0400
> To: m...@canonical.com
> CC: Ayatana@lists.launchpad.net; seb...@ubuntu.com
> Subject: Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents 
> automatically at login
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas  
> wrote:
> > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > Hi folks
> >
> > For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or
> > documents every time they log in.
> >
> > (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat,
> > Firefox, and a time sheet text document.)
> >
> > Every version of Ubuntu has had a "Startup Applications" settings
> > window for choosing applications to open automatically at login.
> >
> > Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window
> > (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular
> > settings.
> >
> > So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System
> > Settings window. My design extends the existing "User Accounts" panel;
> > this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot
> > login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest
> > account. It also allows opening files, not just applications.
> >
> > I'd appreciate your feedback on the design.
> > 
>
> Very nice, I quite like it!
>
> One thing that I would like it to support is mounting partitions. I
> have my music on a separate internal NTFS partition so that it can be
> accessed by Windows. At the moment, the first thing I have to do when
> I log in is browse to that folder in Nautilus so that it gets mounted
> (by gvfs?). The only way currently to have a partition auto-mount on
> login is via /etc/fstab, which affects all users and requires root
> access.
>
> An "Add Partition..." option below the "Add Shell Command..." option
> would be absolutely fantastic. (Obviously the label and location are
> subject to change).
>
> Just my two cents,
> Evan
>
> ___
> 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

Re: [Ayatana] [Bug 863399] Re: Unity needs a way to switch (tab) between windows on current workspace

[Mark Shuttleworth]

The Forums thread at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1862661 is
essentially correct - the relationship between Workspaces and the rest
of Unity is inconsistent. That's simply because we have not yet got to
implement Workspaces the way we'd like, and what's currently shipping is
the Compiz Workspaces plugin bolted alongside the rest of Unity.

Some pieces are already in place, for example,  the Launcher
distinguishes between apps running on this workspace, and other workspaces.

Among many other changes we'd like to see in Workspaces:

 * Alt-TAB should only switch between apps on the current Workspace
 * Clicking on a Launcher icon for an app running elsewhere but not in
the current Workspace, which knows how to have multiple windows and
create new windows, should create a new window in the current Workspace

I've cc'd John Lea and Stewart Wilson who are the right folk to lead
further discussion.

Mark



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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

Re: [Ayatana] [Bug 863399] Re: Unity needs a way to switch (tab) between windows on current workspace

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad]

Den 20. okt. 2011 21:22, skrev Mark Shuttleworth:

  * Alt-TAB should only switch between apps on the current Workspace
  * Clicking on a Launcher icon for an app running elsewhere but not in
the current Workspace, which knows how to have multiple windows and
create new windows, should create a new window in the current Workspace



That sounds great. It would be nice if we could use Workspaces as 
contexts. For instance, if I click a link on workspace B and I have a 
browser there, then that browser should be used, even if that's not the 
last browser window I interacted with. That could be really useful in 
many circumstances. For instance, I like to take breaks from programming 
and play a little guitar. If I could just switch to another workspace 
and have all my stuff ready without disrupting my development space, 
that'd be very nice.


Oh, I'm excited about this cycle. It'll be interesting to see how many 
apps will use dynamic quicklists, lenses, etc.


Jo-Erlend Schinstad

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions

[Peterson Silva]

Is this "ubuntu has bad fonts" really "a thing"? I mean, the Joe user can't
barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO

I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should focus
on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the system
look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot of
complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad...

*Peterson*
*http://petercast.net*



On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy  wrote:

> [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an
> email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.]
>
> I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of
> Ayatana, but this list is my best guess.
>
> Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long
> as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an
> acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an
> acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for
> this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed
> to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial,
> Times New Roman, and Courier New).
> (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/)
>
> However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not
> as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are
> paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04
> (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font
> substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though
> these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as
> they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore
> (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed
> to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and
> Times.
>
> A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web;
> so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are
> rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac
> OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look
> *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that "Linux has
> bad fonts." This becomes even more important as so much of what people
> do on a computer now is within the browser.
>
> Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the
> web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts
> called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!),
> Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that
> calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu
> user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these
> alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu
> Sans, which is a "close enough" approximation of Verdana, as far as
> free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of
> Lucida.)
>
> In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but
> currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply
> much greater versatility for fonts on the web:
>
> * Georgia -  Bitstream Charter
> * Verdana - DejaVu Sans
> * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable]
> * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius]
> * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald]
> * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core]
> * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna
> [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis]
> * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman
> * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter]
>
> Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would
> increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math,
> but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others
> aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that
> make some of these packages not technically "free," but I haven't
> researched that.
>
> Things *do* look more "authentic" with the msttcorefonts package
> installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be
> included on the install disc.
>
> Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to
> DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows
> they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to
> the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif
> are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is
> really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be
> Liberation.
>
> In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the
> typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoughts?
>
> -Jay
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions

[topdownjimmy]

As a quick aside: http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+ugly+fonts
returns over 1 million results.

On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Peterson Silva  wrote:
> Is this "ubuntu has bad fonts" really "a thing"? I mean, the Joe user can't
> barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO
>
> I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should focus
> on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the system
> look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot of
> complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad...
>
> Peterson
> http://petercast.net
>
>
> On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy  wrote:
>>
>> [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an
>> email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.]
>>
>> I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of
>> Ayatana, but this list is my best guess.
>>
>> Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long
>> as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an
>> acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an
>> acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for
>> this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed
>> to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial,
>> Times New Roman, and Courier New).
>> (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/)
>>
>> However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not
>> as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are
>> paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04
>> (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font
>> substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though
>> these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as
>> they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore
>> (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed
>> to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and
>> Times.
>>
>> A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web;
>> so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are
>> rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac
>> OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look
>> *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that "Linux has
>> bad fonts." This becomes even more important as so much of what people
>> do on a computer now is within the browser.
>>
>> Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the
>> web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts
>> called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!),
>> Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that
>> calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu
>> user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these
>> alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu
>> Sans, which is a "close enough" approximation of Verdana, as far as
>> free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of
>> Lucida.)
>>
>> In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but
>> currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply
>> much greater versatility for fonts on the web:
>>
>> * Georgia -  Bitstream Charter
>> * Verdana - DejaVu Sans
>> * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable]
>> * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius]
>> * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald]
>> * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core]
>> * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna
>> [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis]
>> * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman
>> * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter]
>>
>> Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would
>> increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math,
>> but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others
>> aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that
>> make some of these packages not technically "free," but I haven't
>> researched that.
>>
>> Things *do* look more "authentic" with the msttcorefonts package
>> installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be
>> included on the install disc.
>>
>> Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to
>> DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows
>> they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to
>> the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif
>> are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is
>> really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be
>> Liberation.
>>
>> In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the
>> typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoug

Re: [Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions

[Peterson Silva]

Yeah, although that doesn't necessarily refer to that problem. 3 of the
first 10 results were about bad fonts on google earth, how many might be
about wine apps...

Only one of them was about ugly fonts in firefox, and it was on Hardy =]

*Peterson*
*http://petercast.net*



On 20 October 2011 20:10, topdownjimmy  wrote:

> As a quick aside: http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+ugly+fonts
> returns over 1 million results.
>
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Peterson Silva 
> wrote:
> > Is this "ubuntu has bad fonts" really "a thing"? I mean, the Joe user
> can't
> > barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO
> >
> > I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should
> focus
> > on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the
> system
> > look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot
> of
> > complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad...
> >
> > Peterson
> > http://petercast.net
> >
> >
> > On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy  wrote:
> >>
> >> [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an
> >> email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.]
> >>
> >> I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of
> >> Ayatana, but this list is my best guess.
> >>
> >> Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long
> >> as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an
> >> acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an
> >> acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for
> >> this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed
> >> to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial,
> >> Times New Roman, and Courier New).
> >> (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/)
> >>
> >> However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not
> >> as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are
> >> paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04
> >> (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font
> >> substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though
> >> these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as
> >> they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore
> >> (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed
> >> to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and
> >> Times.
> >>
> >> A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web;
> >> so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are
> >> rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac
> >> OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look
> >> *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that "Linux has
> >> bad fonts." This becomes even more important as so much of what people
> >> do on a computer now is within the browser.
> >>
> >> Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the
> >> web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts
> >> called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!),
> >> Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that
> >> calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu
> >> user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these
> >> alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu
> >> Sans, which is a "close enough" approximation of Verdana, as far as
> >> free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of
> >> Lucida.)
> >>
> >> In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but
> >> currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply
> >> much greater versatility for fonts on the web:
> >>
> >> * Georgia -  Bitstream Charter
> >> * Verdana - DejaVu Sans
> >> * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable]
> >> * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius]
> >> * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald]
> >> * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core]
> >> * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna
> >> [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis]
> >> * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman
> >> * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter]
> >>
> >> Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would
> >> increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math,
> >> but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others
> >> aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that
> >> make some of these packages not technically "free," but I haven't
> >> researched that.
> >>
> >> Things *do* look more "authentic" with the msttcorefonts package
> >> installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be
> >> included on the install disc.
> >>
> >> Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts