Wow... more feedback than I was expecting, so I'm just going to go through and quickly reply to them individually at this stage, before we draw breath and figure out how best to attack the second draft...
On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:08 -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote: > Hi Calum, > > Calum Benson wrote: > > We're starting to document what the default desktop configuration for > > the Indiana 1.0 release should be, and naturally we'd like your > > feedback. > > > > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/desktop/uispecs/indiana-uispec/ > > > > Right now it only covers panel and menu layout; more sections will be > > added over the next couple of days. However, I'm sure there's plenty > > for you to get your teeth into already, e.g.: > > Some quick observation. Is there a reason why the launchers are > directly on the top panel as opposed to placing a "Launchers List" > applet on the panel? First of all, I should say that the 'reason' for many of the things in the draft spec is simply that it's the current default, either in community GNOME or Indiana Preview 2. I fully expect the spec to change quite rapidly in response to everyone's feedback, and presenting more-or-less the status quo seemed like the quickest way to solicit it... so far, it seems to have worked :) > I've found the "Launchers List" applet to be quite > helpful in helping to keep the launchers organized and spaced out evenly. I don't have any strong feeling about whether the launchers should go in the applet or not. I seem to remember we had some issues with the Quick Launch applet a couple of years back that made it the less appealing solution, but I forget what they were. I'll have to check back and see if they're still valid. > Regarding 1 panel or 2, I find that 2, always visible" panels makes the > screen look too busy and takes too much screen real-estate. If one of > them automatically retracts, then that problem goes away somewhat. True. I'm fairly sure I've seen studies in the past that show that most people prefer static to auto-hiding panels, though (although that was probably on Windows or MacOS rather than GNOME), and obviously we ought to pick the default that suits most people, and make it easy to change for the others. (I'll see if I can dig up those studies again). > I also don't see the point in cluttering panels with needless menus if > they're already available through the "Launch" menu. I agree, but currently we don't have the 'Launch' menu on the panel in Indiana... so we need to decide which to go with. (One advantage of the Apps/Places/Systems menus is that broader and shallower menu systems are, generally, easier to navigate than narrow and deep ones.) Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:calum.benson at sun.com GNOME Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems
