Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi. I forgot about bug link :-P : https://bugs.launchpad.net/ayatana-design/+bug/917951 Regards Bartosz 2012/1/20, Bartosz : > Hi. > > I created the bug report for this issue. > > Could you please take a look at this? > > Best Regards > Bartosz > > 2012/1/12, Bartosz : >> Hi Guys. >> >> Thanks for your comments. >> I'm not familiar with the Ayatana process, so I have an question: >> >> Is any chance to improve the already opened applications icon look? >> What is official process for this? >> Who take the decision if the feature will be implemented or not? >> >> The "Backlight toggle" idea from me it was only suggestion (it is >> really easy to enable/implement this feature, and it was tested by my >> vision loose friend). >> >> If you don't like it I could suggest something else. >> For example; >> Change size of backlight in Launcher. If the application is already >> opened the backlight size will be big. If application is not run, then >> backlight will be smaller. >> >> Best Regards >> Bartosz >> >> >> 2012/1/12, Ian Santopietro : >>> Symbolic icons are better used for functions or tasks within an >>> app/application/program (which I here use interchangeably). The back >>> button >>> in a browser. >>> >>> Who said the web browsers are broken? I use two to help stay organized. >>> In >>> one browser, I always have bookmarks, saved passwords and sessions, >>> tabs, >>> history, and auto fill for work, while in the other, I keep personal >>> tabs, >>> bookmarks, passwords, etc. >>> >>> How will the user know which app is set a default anyway? What if they >>> want >>> to change it? Short of looking in the settings or haphazardly opening it >>> to >>> find out, there isn't one. >>> >>> A good UI will balance form and function. You don't want to try and >>> adapt >>> function to fit form; if you have to go one way or the other, it's much >>> better to sacrifice form for function. Symbolic icons are unintuitive >>> and >>> very confusing to new users, and they serve very little function since >>> the >>> current, branded icons are symbolic anyway. >>> >>> --Ian Santopietro >>> >>> "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" >>> >>> Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): >>> http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? >>> op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 >>> On Jan 12, 2012 12:58 AM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" < >>> frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. > > It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and > Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That > Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good > thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype > logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider > it. > agreed. that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality. The functionality can then be executed by a branded app. Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform, Unity, rather than "app". So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an executor: www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...] instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...] file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc] this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the functionality is clicked. and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo copyrights are unharmed. to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from the old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an end to it with symbolic indicator menus. > > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does > > Ayatana > aim at developing it themselves? > > Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; > Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And > of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the > Design team. > > > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is > "app" > > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? > > I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current > buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a > smartphone app store. > my philosophical rabbit trail, explained: In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely. If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will need a precise-to-the-core lan
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi. I created the bug report for this issue. Could you please take a look at this? Best Regards Bartosz 2012/1/12, Bartosz : > Hi Guys. > > Thanks for your comments. > I'm not familiar with the Ayatana process, so I have an question: > > Is any chance to improve the already opened applications icon look? > What is official process for this? > Who take the decision if the feature will be implemented or not? > > The "Backlight toggle" idea from me it was only suggestion (it is > really easy to enable/implement this feature, and it was tested by my > vision loose friend). > > If you don't like it I could suggest something else. > For example; > Change size of backlight in Launcher. If the application is already > opened the backlight size will be big. If application is not run, then > backlight will be smaller. > > Best Regards > Bartosz > > > 2012/1/12, Ian Santopietro : >> Symbolic icons are better used for functions or tasks within an >> app/application/program (which I here use interchangeably). The back >> button >> in a browser. >> >> Who said the web browsers are broken? I use two to help stay organized. >> In >> one browser, I always have bookmarks, saved passwords and sessions, tabs, >> history, and auto fill for work, while in the other, I keep personal >> tabs, >> bookmarks, passwords, etc. >> >> How will the user know which app is set a default anyway? What if they >> want >> to change it? Short of looking in the settings or haphazardly opening it >> to >> find out, there isn't one. >> >> A good UI will balance form and function. You don't want to try and adapt >> function to fit form; if you have to go one way or the other, it's much >> better to sacrifice form for function. Symbolic icons are unintuitive and >> very confusing to new users, and they serve very little function since >> the >> current, branded icons are symbolic anyway. >> >> --Ian Santopietro >> >> "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" >> >> Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): >> http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? >> op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 >> On Jan 12, 2012 12:58 AM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" < >> frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: >>> On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote: > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider it. >>> >>> agreed. >>> that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality. >>> The functionality can then be executed by a branded app. >>> Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform, >>> Unity, rather than "app". >>> So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an >>> executor: >>> >>> www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...] >>> instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...] >>> file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc] >>> >>> this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective >>> functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the >>> functionality >>> is clicked. >>> and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo >>> copyrights are unharmed. >>> to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from >>> the >>> old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an >>> end to it with symbolic indicator menus. >>> >>> >>> > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does > Ayatana aim at developing it themselves? Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the Design team. > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is "app" > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a smartphone app store. >>> >>> my philosophical rabbit trail, explained: >>> In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely. >>> If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will >>> need >>> a precise-to-the-core language to do this. >>> If the wording used to define the system is not precise, the system's >>> architecture will reflect this imprecision on all structural levels. >>> Imprecision is an advantage in many situations, especially where you >>> need >>> randomness and entropy. >>> It s
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi Guys. Thanks for your comments. I'm not familiar with the Ayatana process, so I have an question: Is any chance to improve the already opened applications icon look? What is official process for this? Who take the decision if the feature will be implemented or not? The "Backlight toggle" idea from me it was only suggestion (it is really easy to enable/implement this feature, and it was tested by my vision loose friend). If you don't like it I could suggest something else. For example; Change size of backlight in Launcher. If the application is already opened the backlight size will be big. If application is not run, then backlight will be smaller. Best Regards Bartosz 2012/1/12, Ian Santopietro : > Symbolic icons are better used for functions or tasks within an > app/application/program (which I here use interchangeably). The back button > in a browser. > > Who said the web browsers are broken? I use two to help stay organized. In > one browser, I always have bookmarks, saved passwords and sessions, tabs, > history, and auto fill for work, while in the other, I keep personal tabs, > bookmarks, passwords, etc. > > How will the user know which app is set a default anyway? What if they want > to change it? Short of looking in the settings or haphazardly opening it to > find out, there isn't one. > > A good UI will balance form and function. You don't want to try and adapt > function to fit form; if you have to go one way or the other, it's much > better to sacrifice form for function. Symbolic icons are unintuitive and > very confusing to new users, and they serve very little function since the > current, branded icons are symbolic anyway. > > --Ian Santopietro > > "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" > > Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? > op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 > On Jan 12, 2012 12:58 AM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" < > frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: >> >>> On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >>> >>> > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. >>> >>> It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and >>> Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That >>> Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good >>> thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype >>> logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider >>> it. >>> >> >> agreed. >> that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality. >> The functionality can then be executed by a branded app. >> Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform, >> Unity, rather than "app". >> So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an >> executor: >> >> www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...] >> instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...] >> file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc] >> >> this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective >> functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the >> functionality >> is clicked. >> and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo >> copyrights are unharmed. >> to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from >> the >> old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an >> end to it with symbolic indicator menus. >> >> >> >>> > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana >>> aim at developing it themselves? >>> >>> Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; >>> Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And >>> of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the >>> Design team. >>> >>> > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is >>> "app" >>> > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? >>> >>> I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current >>> buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a >>> smartphone app store. >>> >> >> my philosophical rabbit trail, explained: >> In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely. >> If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will need >> a precise-to-the-core language to do this. >> If the wording used to define the system is not precise, the system's >> architecture will reflect this imprecision on all structural levels. >> Imprecision is an advantage in many situations, especially where you need >> randomness and entropy. >> It should be used deliberately, when defining an architecture, which will >> be used by millions of people for many hours of their lives. >> >> "app" != "application"; application != unequal functionality >> symbolic icon maps to functionality >> branding icon maps to "executing implementation" >> >>
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Symbolic icons are better used for functions or tasks within an app/application/program (which I here use interchangeably). The back button in a browser. Who said the web browsers are broken? I use two to help stay organized. In one browser, I always have bookmarks, saved passwords and sessions, tabs, history, and auto fill for work, while in the other, I keep personal tabs, bookmarks, passwords, etc. How will the user know which app is set a default anyway? What if they want to change it? Short of looking in the settings or haphazardly opening it to find out, there isn't one. A good UI will balance form and function. You don't want to try and adapt function to fit form; if you have to go one way or the other, it's much better to sacrifice form for function. Symbolic icons are unintuitive and very confusing to new users, and they serve very little function since the current, branded icons are symbolic anyway. --Ian Santopietro "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 On Jan 12, 2012 12:58 AM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" < frederik.nn...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > >> On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> >> > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. >> >> It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and >> Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That >> Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good >> thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype >> logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider >> it. >> > > agreed. > that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality. > The functionality can then be executed by a branded app. > Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform, > Unity, rather than "app". > So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an executor: > > www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...] > instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...] > file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc] > > this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective > functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the functionality > is clicked. > and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo > copyrights are unharmed. > to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from the > old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an > end to it with symbolic indicator menus. > > > >> > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana >> aim at developing it themselves? >> >> Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; >> Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And >> of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the >> Design team. >> >> > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is >> "app" >> > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? >> >> I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current >> buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a >> smartphone app store. >> > > my philosophical rabbit trail, explained: > In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely. > If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will need > a precise-to-the-core language to do this. > If the wording used to define the system is not precise, the system's > architecture will reflect this imprecision on all structural levels. > Imprecision is an advantage in many situations, especially where you need > randomness and entropy. > It should be used deliberately, when defining an architecture, which will > be used by millions of people for many hours of their lives. > > "app" != "application"; application != unequal functionality > symbolic icon maps to functionality > branding icon maps to "executing implementation" > > >> Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm glad that the original poster >> was able to set up Ubuntu relatively easily with larger, more visible >> icons. I agree that the launcher arrows are not obvious enough; maybe >> the designers will try to make them better in the coming weeks. > > > i'm curious to find out what that will feel like.. > > ___ > 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
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 08:12, Jeremy Bicha wrote: > On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. > > It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and > Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That > Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good > thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype > logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider > it. > agreed. that's why we have symbolic icons which represent a functionality. The functionality can then be executed by a branded app. Think of the symbolic icon as a wrapper. That's foundation, platform, Unity, rather than "app". So to be more specific, a functionality (application) maps to an executor: www-browser - [firefox|epiphany|chromium|opera|...] instant-messenger - [empathy|pidgin|ekiga|skype|trillian|...] file-manager - [thunar|dolphin|marlin|nautilus|mc] this way the last used "app" will be opened for the respective functionality by "default", when the symbol representing the functionality is clicked. and: freedom of choice remains untampered with. branding and logo copyrights are unharmed. to think "free" and "open" doesn't mean we should allow the chaos from the old notification area to bloom in the unity launcher, now that we put an end to it with symbolic indicator menus. > > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana > aim at developing it themselves? > > Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; > Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And > of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the > Design team. > > > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is "app" > > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? > > I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current > buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a > smartphone app store. > my philosophical rabbit trail, explained: In today's "buzzy" language, stuff is not defined precisely. If you want to define a system interface on the other hand, you will need a precise-to-the-core language to do this. If the wording used to define the system is not precise, the system's architecture will reflect this imprecision on all structural levels. Imprecision is an advantage in many situations, especially where you need randomness and entropy. It should be used deliberately, when defining an architecture, which will be used by millions of people for many hours of their lives. "app" != "application"; application != unequal functionality symbolic icon maps to functionality branding icon maps to "executing implementation" > Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm glad that the original poster > was able to set up Ubuntu relatively easily with larger, more visible > icons. I agree that the launcher arrows are not obvious enough; maybe > the designers will try to make them better in the coming weeks. i'm curious to find out what that will feel like.. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
On 11 January 2012 18:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote: >> Removing all but one color from an icon by default is a bad idea, >> unless the icon is supposed to be that way. Even these exceptions >> should be kept to a minimum. The issue that arises is that there are >> two main characteristics people use when quickly identifying an icon: >> color and shape. If we make all the icons one color, then this >> distinction is lost, and we must rely on shape alone, which isn't idea >> for many people. This is the exact inverse of a theme like faenza, >> where all the icons are the same shape (you lose the differences in >> shape, then you only have color left). > > > perhaps my wording was ambiguous or unclear, i mean to suggest the > introduction of symbols instead of branding icons into the launcher. > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim > at developing it themselves? > I think Ayatana should come up with symbols for the Unity UI, including > launcher SYMBOLS for default webbrowser, default email UI, default IM UI and > default file management UI. > > Ayatana aka Canonical also came up with symbols for workspace switcher, > trash and Dash, so it is not far fetched to do the same for default apps > such as firefox and thunderbird, empathy and totem, gnome-terminal, > gnome-calculator, [skype,] gnome-terminal and USC. > > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. It is a very bad idea for Canonical to tweak the Firefox logo, and Mozilla is more of a non-profit than an "evil corporation". That Firefox's logo is nearly unrecognizable in Mint 12 is not a good thing. I don't believe Ubuntu can legally modify the Skype logo/trademarks anyway, but it's a bad idea so let's not even consider it. > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim at > developing it themselves? Ubuntu developers maintain the platform or foundation including Unity; Ubuntu app developers write cool programs that can run on Ubuntu. And of course, not all Ubuntu developers are part of Canonical or the Design team. > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is "app" > different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? I think you like philosophical rabbit trails. "App" is a nice, current buzzword for a computer program, as you might install from a smartphone app store. Anyway, back to the original topic. I'm glad that the original poster was able to set up Ubuntu relatively easily with larger, more visible icons. I agree that the launcher arrows are not obvious enough; maybe the designers will try to make them better in the coming weeks. Jeremy ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
ok, "default app" is a problematic concept. On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 01:42, Ian Santopietro wrote: > I see. > > While this has merit, I don't think it's entirely relevant. What if I > have two web browsers on my launcher? What if I don't have a default > specified. The concept of differentiating an app as default is broken. > There shouldn't be a default web browser, since it really doesn't > matter. _wwwbrowser_ as such is an application. It is first of all not a manufacturer or a product, but an application. The fact that one web-browser sucks so bad that i need 3 to feel safe is the problem here, from my point of view. The feature "freedom of choice" remains unaffected by this suggestion. Opening a file from the file browser should follow the last > used app. > remains the wording problem in the community.. what is "app" and is "app" different from "application"? and what does "application" mean? ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
I see. While this has merit, I don't think it's entirely relevant. What if I have two web browsers on my launcher? What if I don't have a default specified. The concept of differentiating an app as default is broken. There shouldn't be a default web browser, since it really doesn't matter. Opening a file from the file browser should follow the last used app. On Wed, Jan 11, 2012 at 16:27, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 00:48, Ian Santopietro wrote: >> >> This seems more like a theme question then, rather than a UI one. A >> custom theme is better suited to solving the issue in your particular >> case. > > > Theming is an excellent approach towards gaining something from this topic, > yes. > It's just that the consumer in me expects to find a theme to be available > and only a few clicks away.. not that i'd have to create it myself. > >> Removing all but one color from an icon by default is a bad idea, >> unless the icon is supposed to be that way. Even these exceptions >> should be kept to a minimum. The issue that arises is that there are >> two main characteristics people use when quickly identifying an icon: >> color and shape. If we make all the icons one color, then this >> distinction is lost, and we must rely on shape alone, which isn't idea >> for many people. This is the exact inverse of a theme like faenza, >> where all the icons are the same shape (you lose the differences in >> shape, then you only have color left). > > > perhaps my wording was ambiguous or unclear, i mean to suggest the > introduction of symbols instead of branding icons into the launcher. > does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim > at developing it themselves? > I think Ayatana should come up with symbols for the Unity UI, including > launcher SYMBOLS for default webbrowser, default email UI, default IM UI and > default file management UI. > > Ayatana aka Canonical also came up with symbols for workspace switcher, > trash and Dash, so it is not far fetched to do the same for default apps > such as firefox and thunderbird, empathy and totem, gnome-terminal, > gnome-calculator, [skype,] gnome-terminal and USC. > > symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. > >> >> >> I will admit that monochrome icon sets have their artistic merits, but >> functionally, they're a nightmare. Form is nice, but not at the sake >> of function. >> >> Besides, the only other major OS that uses Monochrome app icons is >> Windows Phone 7, and it's not particularly popular with consumers. >> >> On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 16:12, frederik.nn...@gmail.com >> wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 23:57, Ian Santopietro wrote: >> >> >> >> The indicators work well monochrome because they were designed from >> >> the start to be Monochrome, and include only simple shapes and >> >> outlines. Regular icons do not work this way. >> >> >> >> Perhaps an option to desaturate the launcher icons, or a Unity plugin >> >> if we get a plugin framework. But using this as default is a huge step >> >> backward in usability for most people, particularly those with vision >> >> loss, as the icons will blend into the launcher. >> > >> > >> > "No, I disagree! >> > >> > Some OS designers or theme designers may disagree with this basic >> > premise. >> > Or artists may not have time to produce symbolic variations of all the >> > icons >> > for which software developers desire them. Therefore, there should be a >> > mechanism for developers to request a symbolic variation of an icon, >> > such >> > that it will gracefully fall back to the non-symbolic equivalent if — >> > whether intentionally or unintentionally — no symbolic variation has >> > been >> > provided." >> > >> > >> > (from http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/SymbolicIcons ) >> >> >> >> -- >> Ian Santopietro >> >> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. >> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html >> >> "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast >> Ofer middangeard monnum sended" >> >> Pa gur yv y porthaur? >> >> Public GPG key (RSA): >> >> http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 > > -- Ian Santopietro Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 00:48, Ian Santopietro wrote: > This seems more like a theme question then, rather than a UI one. A > custom theme is better suited to solving the issue in your particular > case. > Theming is an excellent approach towards gaining something from this topic, yes. It's just that the consumer in me expects to find a theme to be available and only a few clicks away.. not that i'd have to create it myself. Removing all but one color from an icon by default is a bad idea, > unless the icon is supposed to be that way. Even these exceptions > should be kept to a minimum. The issue that arises is that there are > two main characteristics people use when quickly identifying an icon: > color and shape. If we make all the icons one color, then this > distinction is lost, and we must rely on shape alone, which isn't idea > for many people. This is the exact inverse of a theme like faenza, > where all the icons are the same shape (you lose the differences in > shape, then you only have color left). > perhaps my wording was ambiguous or unclear, i mean to suggest the introduction of symbols instead of branding icons into the launcher. does canonical want app developers to develop their UI or does Ayatana aim at developing it themselves? I think Ayatana should come up with symbols for the Unity UI, including launcher SYMBOLS for default webbrowser, default email UI, default IM UI and default file management UI. Ayatana aka Canonical also came up with symbols for workspace switcher, trash and Dash, so it is not far fetched to do the same for default apps such as firefox and thunderbird, empathy and totem, gnome-terminal, gnome-calculator, [skype,] gnome-terminal and USC. symbolic icons, not desaturated corporate branding icons. > > I will admit that monochrome icon sets have their artistic merits, but > functionally, they're a nightmare. Form is nice, but not at the sake > of function. > > Besides, the only other major OS that uses Monochrome app icons is > Windows Phone 7, and it's not particularly popular with consumers. > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 16:12, frederik.nn...@gmail.com > wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 23:57, Ian Santopietro wrote: > >> > >> The indicators work well monochrome because they were designed from > >> the start to be Monochrome, and include only simple shapes and > >> outlines. Regular icons do not work this way. > >> > >> Perhaps an option to desaturate the launcher icons, or a Unity plugin > >> if we get a plugin framework. But using this as default is a huge step > >> backward in usability for most people, particularly those with vision > >> loss, as the icons will blend into the launcher. > > > > > > "No, I disagree! > > > > Some OS designers or theme designers may disagree with this basic > premise. > > Or artists may not have time to produce symbolic variations of all the > icons > > for which software developers desire them. Therefore, there should be a > > mechanism for developers to request a symbolic variation of an icon, such > > that it will gracefully fall back to the non-symbolic equivalent if — > > whether intentionally or unintentionally — no symbolic variation has been > > provided." > > > > > > (from http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/SymbolicIcons ) > > > > -- > Ian Santopietro > > Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. > See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html > > "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast > Ofer middangeard monnum sended" > > Pa gur yv y porthaur? > > Public GPG key (RSA): > > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
This seems more like a theme question then, rather than a UI one. A custom theme is better suited to solving the issue in your particular case. Removing all but one color from an icon by default is a bad idea, unless the icon is supposed to be that way. Even these exceptions should be kept to a minimum. The issue that arises is that there are two main characteristics people use when quickly identifying an icon: color and shape. If we make all the icons one color, then this distinction is lost, and we must rely on shape alone, which isn't idea for many people. This is the exact inverse of a theme like faenza, where all the icons are the same shape (you lose the differences in shape, then you only have color left). I will admit that monochrome icon sets have their artistic merits, but functionally, they're a nightmare. Form is nice, but not at the sake of function. Besides, the only other major OS that uses Monochrome app icons is Windows Phone 7, and it's not particularly popular with consumers. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 16:12, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote: > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 23:57, Ian Santopietro wrote: >> >> The indicators work well monochrome because they were designed from >> the start to be Monochrome, and include only simple shapes and >> outlines. Regular icons do not work this way. >> >> Perhaps an option to desaturate the launcher icons, or a Unity plugin >> if we get a plugin framework. But using this as default is a huge step >> backward in usability for most people, particularly those with vision >> loss, as the icons will blend into the launcher. > > > "No, I disagree! > > Some OS designers or theme designers may disagree with this basic premise. > Or artists may not have time to produce symbolic variations of all the icons > for which software developers desire them. Therefore, there should be a > mechanism for developers to request a symbolic variation of an icon, such > that it will gracefully fall back to the non-symbolic equivalent if — > whether intentionally or unintentionally — no symbolic variation has been > provided." > > > (from http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/SymbolicIcons ) -- Ian Santopietro Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 23:57, Ian Santopietro wrote: > The indicators work well monochrome because they were designed from > the start to be Monochrome, and include only simple shapes and > outlines. Regular icons do not work this way. > > Perhaps an option to desaturate the launcher icons, or a Unity plugin > if we get a plugin framework. But using this as default is a huge step > backward in usability for most people, particularly those with vision > loss, as the icons will blend into the launcher. > "No, I disagree! Some OS designers or theme designers may disagree with this basic premise. Or artists may not have time to produce symbolic variations of all the icons for which software developers desire them. Therefore, there should be a mechanism for developers to request a symbolic variation of an icon, such that it will gracefully fall back to the non-symbolic equivalent if — whether intentionally or unintentionally — no symbolic variation has been provided." (from http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/SymbolicIcons ) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
The indicators work well monochrome because they were designed from the start to be Monochrome, and include only simple shapes and outlines. Regular icons do not work this way. Perhaps an option to desaturate the launcher icons, or a Unity plugin if we get a plugin framework. But using this as default is a huge step backward in usability for most people, particularly those with vision loss, as the icons will blend into the launcher. On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 15:23, frederik.nn...@gmail.com wrote: > hi Ian ;) > > On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:40, Ian Santopietro wrote: >> >> Desaturating inactive applications in the launcher is a bad idea. It >> removes the ability to recognize different icons based on color. That would >> leave only shape, which isn't enough on it's own, particularly if the >> current icon set has many similar icons (like Faenza). > > > you're correct, it is a radical approach to begin with. > The indicator menu's symbolic icons make it clear to us that if a symbol > conveys a purpose, it does not need flashy colors to make that clear to the > user. > On the contrary. > All the color in the launcher is reason enough for me to feel ashamed for > each time it pops out of the left screen corner into visibility. > > My approach is radical, and that is probably the reason why it will not fit > so well into this conversation. Nevertheless i'd like to share it, because > it combines different methods of accessibility enhancement, which at the > same time make usability better, too, and recude visual clutter. > > I gave the icons in the launcher maximum size via CCSM, because i don't like > aiming with mice and trackpads, and i must say that it felt more natural and > less clutterful from the first moment on, no question. I did this on every > device that i operate a desktop account on, and i don't feel at home without > it anymore. > Backligh always toggles, absolutely! > Naturally i had to remove all but the really necessary icons from the > launcher, especially with the limited space a netbook has to offer on the > vertical axis. Fortunately this forced me into a well organized usage of > space, which turned out to be quite practical, compared to how cluttered the > launcher was before that. > > the prettiest order i had in the launcher was with a tailored icon set that > had monochrome symbolic icons for most of the usual apps. > i don't think it should be the ordinary user's use case to have different > browsers in their launcher, which would get them confused when placed next > to each other in monochrome look. this sounds more like a highly specialized > case to me, and the users i know who are that specialized know well how to > remedy such a problem. > For this special case, i'd rather include an exception, such as "keep > saturated always", instead of imposing the exception onto the main audience. -- Ian Santopietro Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
hi Ian ;) On Mon, Jan 9, 2012 at 01:40, Ian Santopietro wrote: > Desaturating inactive applications in the launcher is a bad idea. It > removes the ability to recognize different icons based on color. That would > leave only shape, which isn't enough on it's own, particularly if the > current icon set has many similar icons (like Faenza). > you're correct, it is a radical approach to begin with. The indicator menu's symbolic icons make it clear to us that if a symbol conveys a purpose, it does not need flashy colors to make that clear to the user. On the contrary. All the color in the launcher is reason enough for me to feel ashamed for each time it pops out of the left screen corner into visibility. My approach is radical, and that is probably the reason why it will not fit so well into this conversation. Nevertheless i'd like to share it, because it combines different methods of accessibility enhancement, which at the same time make usability better, too, and recude visual clutter. I gave the icons in the launcher maximum size via CCSM, because i don't like aiming with mice and trackpads, and i must say that it felt more natural and less clutterful from the first moment on, no question. I did this on every device that i operate a desktop account on, and i don't feel at home without it anymore. Backligh always toggles, absolutely! Naturally i had to remove all but the really necessary icons from the launcher, especially with the limited space a netbook has to offer on the vertical axis. Fortunately this forced me into a well organized usage of space, which turned out to be quite practical, compared to how cluttered the launcher was before that. the prettiest order i had in the launcher was with a tailored icon set that had monochrome symbolic icons for most of the usual apps. i don't think it should be the ordinary user's use case to have different browsers in their launcher, which would get them confused when placed next to each other in monochrome look. this sounds more like a highly specialized case to me, and the users i know who are that specialized know well how to remedy such a problem. For this special case, i'd rather include an exception, such as "keep saturated always", instead of imposing the exception onto the main audience. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
I should specify; my comment was in response to Frederik. Turning off the backlight toggles by default I'm indifferent on, personally. I do appreciate that it helps people with poor vision, but I wonder a better solution is to include a Unity specific configuration tool in the repos or on CD. That would solve this and a large number rod other complaints with Unity. --Ian Santopietro "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 On Jan 9, 2012 7:36 AM, "Bartosz" wrote: > Hi. > > i don't want desaturate inactive icons. > Every icon has its own background square (backlight). > The idea is toggle it if it is inactive, > > I tested it, and it works perfectly. Try it by yourself by using Ccsm. > It is really easy to implement this. > > If you don't like this solution, I have several another ideas how to > improve this behaviour. > > Best Regards > Bartosz > > W dniu 9 stycznia 2012 01:40 użytkownik Ian Santopietro > napisał: > > Desaturating inactive applications in the launcher is a bad idea. It > removes > > the ability to recognize different icons based on color. That would leave > > only shape, which isn't enough on it's own, particularly if the current > icon > > set has many similar icons (like Faenza). > > > > --Ian Santopietro > > > > "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" > > > > Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): > > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? > > op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 > > > > On Jan 8, 2012 3:20 PM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" > > wrote: > >> > >> like i often tell friends and others: > >> > >> imo, a11y and usability are one and the same thing, when we're talking > >> about basic functionality. > >> > >> That is why design should be based on a solid semantic foundation: > >> this way, porting whatever event or state notification to the human > >> sense realms (ayatana) becomes a trivial task of translation. > >> > >> The little arrows are of little semantic value, they could be > >> interpreted as a plentitude of things. > >> > >> To display an application in the launcher in full color regardless > >> whether it is currently active or dormant is in itself already a > >> misleading way of presenting an app. Ccsm offers turning off backlight > >> for inactive apps. > >> > >> This is better, but still not enough from a semantic point of view: > >> i'm still indicating something that isn't there (loaded). > >> > >> Apps that are inactive should be monochrome in the launcher. If > >> possible, their "button" should display a symbolic icon instead of a > >> rich logo. Semantic design is a11y design, but to get that message > >> across to everyone, i'd probably have to prove the concept first, and > >> i'm afraid i'm not up to the challenge quite yet. > >> > >> > >> On 2012-01-06, Matt Wheeler wrote: > >> > On 6 January 2012 01:31, Bartosz wrote: > >> >> Hi. > >> >> > >> >> My friend has a big vision impairment. > >> >> In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He > is > >> >> using computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing > >> >> (firefox), and watching the movies (vlc player) > >> >> > >> >> I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his > >> >> impressions. > >> >> > >> >> I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and > >> >> appearance > >> >> set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive > >> >> surprised with the Ubuntu. > >> > > >> > Great! :) > >> > > >> >> Most annoying problem he found: > >> >> - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - > after > >> >> open the new applications he has problems with notice, which > >> >> application > >> >> are already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of > icon. > >> >> In > >> >> Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some > >> >> more > >> >> readable look? > >> >> - readability of the currently active application in launcher - > >> >> Currently > >> >> there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do > it > >> >> more readable? > >> > > >> > It's possible to change the appearance of running apps in the launcher > >> > by installing compizconfig-settings-manager and tweaking the settings > >> > in the unity plugin. Perhaps some changes to the launcher's appearance > >> > should be made automatically when choosing low, high or high/inverse > >> > contrast settings, or an option added to the Universal Access settings > >> > (I'm not sure tying it to the contrast option quite fits... anyone?) > >> > > >> >> With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu > >> >> will > >> >> be much higher. > >> >> > >> >> What do you think about his ideas? > >> >> Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? > >> > > >> > It's possible for you do do this
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi. i don't want desaturate inactive icons. Every icon has its own background square (backlight). The idea is toggle it if it is inactive, I tested it, and it works perfectly. Try it by yourself by using Ccsm. It is really easy to implement this. If you don't like this solution, I have several another ideas how to improve this behaviour. Best Regards Bartosz W dniu 9 stycznia 2012 01:40 użytkownik Ian Santopietro napisał: > Desaturating inactive applications in the launcher is a bad idea. It removes > the ability to recognize different icons based on color. That would leave > only shape, which isn't enough on it's own, particularly if the current icon > set has many similar icons (like Faenza). > > --Ian Santopietro > > "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" > > Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): > http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? > op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 > > On Jan 8, 2012 3:20 PM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" > wrote: >> >> like i often tell friends and others: >> >> imo, a11y and usability are one and the same thing, when we're talking >> about basic functionality. >> >> That is why design should be based on a solid semantic foundation: >> this way, porting whatever event or state notification to the human >> sense realms (ayatana) becomes a trivial task of translation. >> >> The little arrows are of little semantic value, they could be >> interpreted as a plentitude of things. >> >> To display an application in the launcher in full color regardless >> whether it is currently active or dormant is in itself already a >> misleading way of presenting an app. Ccsm offers turning off backlight >> for inactive apps. >> >> This is better, but still not enough from a semantic point of view: >> i'm still indicating something that isn't there (loaded). >> >> Apps that are inactive should be monochrome in the launcher. If >> possible, their "button" should display a symbolic icon instead of a >> rich logo. Semantic design is a11y design, but to get that message >> across to everyone, i'd probably have to prove the concept first, and >> i'm afraid i'm not up to the challenge quite yet. >> >> >> On 2012-01-06, Matt Wheeler wrote: >> > On 6 January 2012 01:31, Bartosz wrote: >> >> Hi. >> >> >> >> My friend has a big vision impairment. >> >> In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He is >> >> using computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing >> >> (firefox), and watching the movies (vlc player) >> >> >> >> I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his >> >> impressions. >> >> >> >> I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and >> >> appearance >> >> set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive >> >> surprised with the Ubuntu. >> > >> > Great! :) >> > >> >> Most annoying problem he found: >> >> - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - after >> >> open the new applications he has problems with notice, which >> >> application >> >> are already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of icon. >> >> In >> >> Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some >> >> more >> >> readable look? >> >> - readability of the currently active application in launcher - >> >> Currently >> >> there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do it >> >> more readable? >> > >> > It's possible to change the appearance of running apps in the launcher >> > by installing compizconfig-settings-manager and tweaking the settings >> > in the unity plugin. Perhaps some changes to the launcher's appearance >> > should be made automatically when choosing low, high or high/inverse >> > contrast settings, or an option added to the Universal Access settings >> > (I'm not sure tying it to the contrast option quite fits... anyone?) >> > >> >> With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu >> >> will >> >> be much higher. >> >> >> >> What do you think about his ideas? >> >> Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? >> > >> > It's possible for you do do this for your friend right away, we just >> > need to decide whether we should be doing this by default, and also >> > whether the current configuration options for the launcher are good >> > enough from an accessibility point of view. I'm not in any way an >> > accessibility expert so someone who is should probably look at what >> > we've got and comment here :) >> > >> > >> > Thanks >> > >> > -- >> > Matt Wheeler >> > m...@funkyhat.org >> > >> > ___ >> > 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.launch
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Desaturating inactive applications in the launcher is a bad idea. It removes the ability to recognize different icons based on color. That would leave only shape, which isn't enough on it's own, particularly if the current icon set has many similar icons (like Faenza). --Ian Santopietro "Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended" Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup? op=get&search=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 On Jan 8, 2012 3:20 PM, "frederik.nn...@gmail.com" wrote: > like i often tell friends and others: > > imo, a11y and usability are one and the same thing, when we're talking > about basic functionality. > > That is why design should be based on a solid semantic foundation: > this way, porting whatever event or state notification to the human > sense realms (ayatana) becomes a trivial task of translation. > > The little arrows are of little semantic value, they could be > interpreted as a plentitude of things. > > To display an application in the launcher in full color regardless > whether it is currently active or dormant is in itself already a > misleading way of presenting an app. Ccsm offers turning off backlight > for inactive apps. > > This is better, but still not enough from a semantic point of view: > i'm still indicating something that isn't there (loaded). > > Apps that are inactive should be monochrome in the launcher. If > possible, their "button" should display a symbolic icon instead of a > rich logo. Semantic design is a11y design, but to get that message > across to everyone, i'd probably have to prove the concept first, and > i'm afraid i'm not up to the challenge quite yet. > > On 2012-01-06, Matt Wheeler wrote: > > On 6 January 2012 01:31, Bartosz wrote: > >> Hi. > >> > >> My friend has a big vision impairment. > >> In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He is > >> using computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing > >> (firefox), and watching the movies (vlc player) > >> > >> I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his > >> impressions. > >> > >> I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and appearance > >> set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive > >> surprised with the Ubuntu. > > > > Great! :) > > > >> Most annoying problem he found: > >> - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - after > >> open the new applications he has problems with notice, which > application > >> are already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of icon. > In > >> Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some > more > >> readable look? > >> - readability of the currently active application in launcher - > Currently > >> there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do it > >> more readable? > > > > It's possible to change the appearance of running apps in the launcher > > by installing compizconfig-settings-manager and tweaking the settings > > in the unity plugin. Perhaps some changes to the launcher's appearance > > should be made automatically when choosing low, high or high/inverse > > contrast settings, or an option added to the Universal Access settings > > (I'm not sure tying it to the contrast option quite fits... anyone?) > > > >> With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu > will > >> be much higher. > >> > >> What do you think about his ideas? > >> Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? > > > > It's possible for you do do this for your friend right away, we just > > need to decide whether we should be doing this by default, and also > > whether the current configuration options for the launcher are good > > enough from an accessibility point of view. I'm not in any way an > > accessibility expert so someone who is should probably look at what > > we've got and comment here :) > > > > > > Thanks > > > > -- > > Matt Wheeler > > m...@funkyhat.org > > > > ___ > > 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
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
like i often tell friends and others: imo, a11y and usability are one and the same thing, when we're talking about basic functionality. That is why design should be based on a solid semantic foundation: this way, porting whatever event or state notification to the human sense realms (ayatana) becomes a trivial task of translation. The little arrows are of little semantic value, they could be interpreted as a plentitude of things. To display an application in the launcher in full color regardless whether it is currently active or dormant is in itself already a misleading way of presenting an app. Ccsm offers turning off backlight for inactive apps. This is better, but still not enough from a semantic point of view: i'm still indicating something that isn't there (loaded). Apps that are inactive should be monochrome in the launcher. If possible, their "button" should display a symbolic icon instead of a rich logo. Semantic design is a11y design, but to get that message across to everyone, i'd probably have to prove the concept first, and i'm afraid i'm not up to the challenge quite yet. On 2012-01-06, Matt Wheeler wrote: > On 6 January 2012 01:31, Bartosz wrote: >> Hi. >> >> My friend has a big vision impairment. >> In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He is >> using computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing >> (firefox), and watching the movies (vlc player) >> >> I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his >> impressions. >> >> I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and appearance >> set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive >> surprised with the Ubuntu. > > Great! :) > >> Most annoying problem he found: >> - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - after >> open the new applications he has problems with notice, which application >> are already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of icon. In >> Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some more >> readable look? >> - readability of the currently active application in launcher - Currently >> there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do it >> more readable? > > It's possible to change the appearance of running apps in the launcher > by installing compizconfig-settings-manager and tweaking the settings > in the unity plugin. Perhaps some changes to the launcher's appearance > should be made automatically when choosing low, high or high/inverse > contrast settings, or an option added to the Universal Access settings > (I'm not sure tying it to the contrast option quite fits... anyone?) > >> With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu will >> be much higher. >> >> What do you think about his ideas? >> Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? > > It's possible for you do do this for your friend right away, we just > need to decide whether we should be doing this by default, and also > whether the current configuration options for the launcher are good > enough from an accessibility point of view. I'm not in any way an > accessibility expert so someone who is should probably look at what > we've got and comment here :) > > > Thanks > > -- > Matt Wheeler > m...@funkyhat.org > > ___ > 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
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi. For me it doesn't matter if the backlight, will be enabled/toggled/disabled etc., but it does matter for my friend. You even doesn't image how much work/time is needed to enable this option, by such person which is not Linux expert. I would like to be Unity be more user-friendly for such kind of people. If you don't this solution, please provide some new idea how to resolve this problem (by default in Unity). Best Regards Bartosz W dniu 8 stycznia 2012 15:23 użytkownik balint...@gmail.com napisał: > I think with the backlight toggles mode active applications would be best > noticable with not just the backlight but also the shiny frame toggleing. To > me its still a bit visibily confusing the way it is now. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
I think with the backlight toggles mode active applications would be best noticable with not just the backlight but also the shiny frame toggleing. To me its still a bit visibily confusing the way it is now. ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi. After install CompizConfig Settings Manager (ccsm) and enable Backlight Toggles, there is an huge improvement: http://i.stack.imgur.com/Yj66g.png Thanks! I'm wondering why such feature is not enabled by default. Do we really need install ccsm, and manually configure/tune up Unity? Is any chance to change this defaults (it is huge improvement for my friend in Unity usage)? Thanks Bartosz 2012/1/6, Matt Wheeler : > On 6 January 2012 01:31, Bartosz wrote: >> Hi. >> >> My friend has a big vision impairment. >> In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He is >> using computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing >> (firefox), and watching the movies (vlc player) >> >> I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his >> impressions. >> >> I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and appearance >> set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive >> surprised with the Ubuntu. > > Great! :) > >> Most annoying problem he found: >> - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - after >> open the new applications he has problems with notice, which application >> are already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of icon. In >> Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some more >> readable look? >> - readability of the currently active application in launcher - Currently >> there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do it >> more readable? > > It's possible to change the appearance of running apps in the launcher > by installing compizconfig-settings-manager and tweaking the settings > in the unity plugin. Perhaps some changes to the launcher's appearance > should be made automatically when choosing low, high or high/inverse > contrast settings, or an option added to the Universal Access settings > (I'm not sure tying it to the contrast option quite fits... anyone?) > >> With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu will >> be much higher. >> >> What do you think about his ideas? >> Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? > > It's possible for you do do this for your friend right away, we just > need to decide whether we should be doing this by default, and also > whether the current configuration options for the launcher are good > enough from an accessibility point of view. I'm not in any way an > accessibility expert so someone who is should probably look at what > we've got and comment here :) > > > Thanks > > -- > Matt Wheeler > m...@funkyhat.org > ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
On 6 January 2012 01:31, Bartosz wrote: > Hi. > > My friend has a big vision impairment. > In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He is using > computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing (firefox), and > watching the movies (vlc player) > > I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his impressions. > > I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and appearance > set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive > surprised with the Ubuntu. Great! :) > Most annoying problem he found: > - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - after open > the new applications he has problems with notice, which application are > already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of icon. In > Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some more > readable look? > - readability of the currently active application in launcher - Currently > there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do it more > readable? It's possible to change the appearance of running apps in the launcher by installing compizconfig-settings-manager and tweaking the settings in the unity plugin. Perhaps some changes to the launcher's appearance should be made automatically when choosing low, high or high/inverse contrast settings, or an option added to the Universal Access settings (I'm not sure tying it to the contrast option quite fits... anyone?) > With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu will be > much higher. > > What do you think about his ideas? > Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? It's possible for you do do this for your friend right away, we just need to decide whether we should be doing this by default, and also whether the current configuration options for the launcher are good enough from an accessibility point of view. I'm not in any way an accessibility expert so someone who is should probably look at what we've got and comment here :) Thanks -- Matt Wheeler m...@funkyhat.org ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ayatana] Unity improvement for vision loss people
Hi. My friend has a big vision impairment. In every day computer usage he is using Windows 7 with big fonts. He is using computer for checking the mail (thunderbird), web browsing (firefox), and watching the movies (vlc player) I convinced him to test the Ubuntu for two weeks, and tell me his impressions. I installed Ubuntu 10.10. After enable some accessibility and appearance set-up, the Ubuntu works like the charm. My friend was very positive surprised with the Ubuntu. Most annoying problem he found: - readability of the currently opened applications in launcher - after open the new applications he has problems with notice, which application are already opened. There is only small arrow on the left side of icon. In Windows 7 there is no such problem. Is is possible to implement some more readable look? - readability of the currently active application in launcher - Currently there is small arrow on the right side of icon. Is it possible to do it more readable? With this problem solved, the productivity of vision loss with ubuntu will be much higher. What do you think about his ideas? Do you think it is possible to change this looks in Unuty? Best Regards Bartosz ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
