On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:38 PM, David Regev wrote:
> I have yet to see an actual study arguing against the efficiency of global
> menus, not even for large modern monitors. If you want to take the return
> trip into account and other such factors, feel free to do so. The
> preliminary calculation
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 8:29 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
>> Altogether four icons which I think would leave room enough for app
>> icons on smaller screens.
>
> Do you really think that? Four launchers are in my view a lot of extra
> launchers. What I tried to achieve with my design was that it
2011/5/23 Ed Lin
> This would give us a very consistent and structured layout. The
> launcher would consist of icons all having the same size (including
> the BFB) and the context- menu/dash/lenses would all follow the same
> theme and design.
That's exactly the problem I tried to address. I wa
I already said this but I'll repeat it to prevent being misunderstood:
I maintain that Fitts's Law is absolutely accurate and helpful for
what it describes. The problem is that it doesn't describe all factors
necessary for a full assessment and is often applied in a too simple
and linear (literally
The purpose would be more space to move around on, place windows there etc.
If the Global menu is made redundant by a menu-toggler, then there's no
reason to waste about 25x(x-resolution) of pixels drawing a panel that is
only used when an application is maximized. From a purely personal view I'd
r
Here's my third round of mockups based on some of the ideas floating around.
--
Particular ideas visualized:
http://fav.me/d3h14ui <-- Global-menu has turned into Maximode-menu, it is
only visible when a window is maximized, and it only shows the menus of the
maximized window, NEV
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 15:26, Ed Lin wrote:
> Here's an idea I just had: we could put icons next to each other, in
> violation of Fitts's Law, when we have a single menu for all of them
> which can be accessed by clicking on anywhere on the area, from screen
> edge to launcher edge.
Just going o
On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 08:05, Ed Lin wrote:
> W in this context depends on acceleration curve and distance, it's not
> fixed! That's the reason one may be tempted to start calculating with
> infinity and mathematically speaking its use is absolutely correct. "You are
> not supposed to" doesn't
On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Niklas Rosenqvist
wrote:
> Here is the mockup:
> http://i.imgur.com/sl8k6.png
> If this won't work then maybe we could just move the whole top panel to the
> bottom of the screen and have a "intellihide" function for it or merge it
> with the launcher:
> http://i.i
On Sun, May 22, 2011 at 11:28 PM, David Regev wrote:
> The equation doesn’t break down here because you’re not supposed to put in
> ∞. Although the edge may theoretically be infinitely long, it’s not in
> practice. Any human being aiming at the edge will stop within a certain
> distance past the e
I posted a launcher design sketch on how the workspace switcher/scale could
be better implemented into the launcher in the Global menu in Oneric Ocelot
(11.10) thread. Take a look!
2011/5/22 Ed Lin
> On Sat, May 21, 2011 at 12:40 AM, Niklas Rosenqvist
> wrote:
> > 2011/5/20 Ed Lin
> >> alterna
11 matches
Mail list logo
