On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:16 PM Marco Martin wrote: > On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Alex Fiestas wrote: > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 09:49:22 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 05:24:56 Alex Fiestas wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:07:08 AM Björn Balazs wrote: > > > > > Have you been aware of this vision? > > > > > > > > No. > > > > > > > > > If no: looking back would it have been helpful for your work if you > > > > > had known it (and how)? > > > > > > > > No (I don't see how to apply it on Bluedevil / RandR / Kamoso). > > > > > > two that are immediately applicable: > > > > > > * "organic" and scalable user interfaces > > > > I don't exactly now what those are, can you explain? or better, can you > > apply those concepts to the current BlueDevil implementation? > > organic: looking less as a computer object, but interacting more as a real > object: so animated instead of immediate transitions (something appearing > immediately is "magic"), rounded corners, shadows, preferring direct > manipulation rather than by some proxy (ie resize by dragging instead of > writing the number of pixels somewhere) and many things like that. > if you compare with kde3 we are miles ahead on this regard but still not > there. > note that this is different, and risking to be confused with skeuomorphism > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph), that tends to destroy coherence > and create uncanny valleys, so one moves over a thin line here ;) > > scalable: mostly referring to the available space so screen size (or just > containment size, applets in panels vs desktop) > we started with the formfactor concept and gone forward with the device > specific qml files for plasmoids (experimental news reader, microblog) Thanks for the definitions.
Both organic and scalable interfaces are means to an end if i understood them correctly: making interfaces that feel natural. Maybe we should put that into the vision instead? > > For RandR I could add the posibility of modify the default settings and > > tied them to Activity (pretty much like PowerDevil does right now). Not > > that interesting imho. > > a little inner voice is whispering "presentation with a beamer" ;) > the activity switch causing also the powermanagement settings to switch and > the right presentation files to open could even be triggered by the > detection of the projector :p </bluesky> Oh that's a good idea indeed! I'm a bit worried though about things changing automagically. > > Considering that applications like Dolphin or Gwenview are part of it as > > well as Solid (hardware integration) I find many parts of that vision > > vaguely applicable or at least not clearly applicable. > > to me the boundaries should blurry more and more until nobody cares what an > app is, every functionality shared in any way between apps, just going in > the global environment (like we did with slc) dolphin should be part of the > workspace without the user even noticing on what they are using (yeah, i > know that for the developer having the name of his product well visible is > important and ) *** fuck ego's *** :p > > Also there are some parts of the vision I don't understand, imho we should > > explain them or use other words. > > yep, i agree especially in last years there wasn't much put out on the > outside > > -scalable interfaces ? > > -today's contexts ? > > -direct manipulation interfaces > > -organic look and feel. > > hmm, maybe a glossary could be compiled on the wiki? > also some of them derive from actual psychology studies (like why not having > sliding animations for appearing things plays bad tricks to the brain), I > would like having a bit of bibliography on this, but sadly i don't :/ > > there is a minimum common language that should really be a given for > participating on a thing like that, I advise to everybody (but especially to > who is coming there) some good reads (those are more about ux design > details but are concept useful anyways for a broader vision definition): > http://www.andrewschechterman.com/AndrewSchechterman/Qi_Fa_files/UX%20Glossa > ry.pdf http://cyborganthropology.com/UX_Glossary > http://blog.usabilla.com/the-usability-abc-part-2/#more-3075 > http://uxmag.com/ If for understanding our vision we have to read all that then it is not a good vision imho. Maybe I don't understand what a vision should is though (this is the first time I'm participating in something like this). > i think most of what's written in a permanent place is there: > http://community.kde.org/Plasma#Interface_Standards_and_Research > > sadly quite outdated. a thing that would be very good from the sprint by the > non coders that will participate is to write, write and write about those > topics ;) I hope seba's is updated since he is the only core plasma developer comming (aham aham u.U). > > At the end a user spent most of its time on applications. > > true, but the fact that this distinction exists in the first place may be > part of the problem (false dichotomy?) > > ie with the machine i want to perform task x to produce or view a certain > thing, not use application y, atomicity of applications is in part a > technical detail, in part historical commercial reasons to have a product > in a store. Mmm these last lines have been an eye opener for me, I need some time to think and process them :p _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel