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.
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