On 12 Aug 2008, at 23:02, Glynn Foster wrote: > > On 13/08/2008, at 9:57 AM, Brian Cameron wrote: >> >> I thought that the plan was that we would need to not include many >> new >> applications in the menus in Nevada. At least that's what Calum >> Benson >> seemed to be suggesting. To avoid a cluttered appearance. > > I don't understand this logic personally. The idea of hiding menus > entries in Nevada is only going to cause users who continue to use > it pain.
Not half as much pain as using an Applications menu loaded with dozens of non-core applications of varying quality and accessibility, duplicate functionality, non-obvious names etc... For better or for worse, I still consider the Nevada desktop to be the closest thing we currently have to the next Solaris desktop. IMHO this means choosing the default menu contents and layout as carefully as ever (and certainly more carefully than JDS3), not using it as a dumping ground for every app that we ever feel like shipping :) > I think there's definitely a potential need for a Nevada desktop UI > spec, especially since the branding is currently different there > (though there may be plans to use the same on both?) There is already a Nevada UI desktop spec, although it's a bit out of date currently: <http://opensolaris.org/os/community/desktop/uispecs/nevada-uispec/> I intend to focus on the Nevada UI spec again once the 2008.11 UI spec is frozen, because as you suggest, there probably ought to be more convergence between the two than there is now. (But we certainly need to figure out with marketing/branding where it makes sense to keep them different.) 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
