On 11 Apr 2008, at 08:50, Calum Benson wrote: > > Just realised I forgot to post the results-- been a bit distracted > with the CHI conference in Florence this week. > > The result of the vote was: > > 1. Bottom panel+launch menu: 25 (42.4%) > 2. Option 1 + side lancher panel: 4 (6.8%) > 3. Top panel with menubar and side launcher panel: 4 (6.8%) > 4. Top and bottom panels with menu bar: 26 (44.1%) > > 15 people also added comments, which I haven't read yet and may > obviously have some further insight... will digest those when I get > home.
So, in the interests of transparency, below are those comments, categorised by which selection each commenter made. My interpretation of the feedback would be: * The GNOME default panel configuration (top and bottom with main menu) seems to be just as popular as the 'JDS' configuration (bottom panel with launch menu). Other than any reasons that the folks responsible for branding might yet come up with, IMHO there's no overwhelming reason not to keep going with the GNOME default for Indiana, as we've done in the preview releases up to now. * Given the 50/50 split between the two most popular choices, we probably ought to consider adding a simple first-time-login layout chooser. (Given the timescales, this would most likely have to happen post-1.0, though.) * We possibly went slightly overboard adding extra launchers for the second draft, so will probably cut back on those slightly again to ease the clutter. (Note that all the screenshots used so far have been 800x600, though, which I'd guess is about the lowest common denominator for anything people will be running Indiana on-- so they do make things look more cramped than most of you will experience in practise. Those survey comments: 1. Bottom panel with launch menu ------ * bottom panel with menu chosen due to lack of top panel with launch menu * Option 4 (top+bottom panels with main menu) is a close 2nd - don't care for 2 or 3 (the ones with side launcher panels) * This decision is based on maximum real estate available. Bottom panel with launch menu has least amount of dedicated or no-obstruction- issue format. Since panel should be able to be moved to the top instead of bottom, those who prefer it on the top hopefully? can move it. * I like the one panel solution better as I need the screen space. - Being able to change the Drawer icon so I easier find grouped icons (e.g. all office apps, or all photo apps) would be great. - I'd like the clock in 24 hour format by default, or being chosen based on time zone or region settings during install time. (CB: I think the default is chosen based on locale, will have to check though.) * None are what I'd use myself but this is closest. When I log in to this, I'd likely move the whole thing up to the top. 2. Bottom panel with launch menu, and side launcher panel ------ * That actually looks pretty good. (My second choice whould be option #1 [bottom panel with launch menu]..) * pl. make it easy for our customers to change the default email and browser clients. every one has their own preference. my personal preference is thunderbird/firefox (CB: it's always been possible to choose the defaults, via the Preferred Applications GUI, but this doesn't affect the behaviour of any launcher icons, which always run a specific application. We could perhaps have launchers that used gnome- open to launch the default mailer/browser instead, but that's not ideal, and I'm not sure it's really all that useful-- most people will pick one mailer/browser and stick to it.) 3. Top panel with menu bar, and side launcher panel --- * (would be) even better without the menu bar.... * The top panel with menu bar and side launcher makes it easy if running in a VM window -- chances are it started aligned at the top. With this you have access to all icons immediately without scrolling. I hadn't seen this layout before. First glance I didn't care for it because it was different. But then I started to think about my various terminals and always liked the bar at the top. The side launch panel almost guarantees I have access to the buttons quickly regardless of if I'm in a VM window or on a terminal. It has a clean and functional feel. It is just different, which is partially what drew me to it, but the ease of use also seems to be there. 4. Top and bottom panels with menu bar --- * It would be really cool to run real usability studies on a couple of preferred desktop layouts. (CB: Agreed, too late to help us choose for 1.0, but perhaps we could run a baseline study after its release to help us evaluate the impact of future changes.) * I don't understand what the icons mean to the right of the terminal icon. I wouldn't include them. I'd also be hesitant about including the battery monitor and network status icon, given the likelihood of them changing when the next phase of NWAM (and notification support) comes along. * Top-only would be okay, too. * use Gnome defaults * I'm not crazy about the four workspaces by default. I think the notification icons/applets in the bottom panel should go in the panel on top. There are too many program launchers in the top panel. It looks cluttered. Still of the 4 its probably the best. * While screen real estate is important, I run DP2 on a 7" Eee PC. I find that if I do want to see more of any application, I just use a custom keyboard shortcut Alt+F11 to run full screen, or use Firefox's F11. I'm happy with the top & bottom panels layout if it's what the the standard GNOME layout is, but in general I'm more than happy to defer this decision to people more versed in HCI than I. Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] GNOME Desktop Team http://blogs.sun.com/calum +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list indiana-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
