Re: Please Comment: Proposal to change the name of Applications - Add/Remove...
On Thu, 2009-01-15 at 19:53 +0100, Oliver Grawert wrote: Am Donnerstag, den 15.01.2009, 10:29 -0800 schrieb Rick Spencer: A proposal has been put forward to change the name of the Add/Remove... menu item. ... Add/Remove was initially designed to refer to the menu It seems it no longer does that. I think it should return to that purpose and remain Add/Remove... Here's an example of it not doing what it should, it shows that I have p7zip installed, yet there is no icon to start the p7zip application. Packages should be divided between GUI applications, cmdline applications, features and others that only show in synaptic/aptitude/etc. * The Add/Remove... button should remain. * There should /also/ be a software library that shows the applications from Add/Remove... but also shows cmdline apps and features * There should be buttons to switch between the two UIs (ie, Add/Remove... should have a button to go to the software library and vice versa. * Any applications that support plugins should provide a link to the Software Library to browse their plugins. * Any installed feature should cause relevant plugins to be installed for all relevant installed applications. If a new plugin is added to the repos it should be installed as an update of the feature, and if a new application is installed, the relevant plugins for all installed features should be installed. This would need dpkg to support reverse dependencies of the form RDepends: gstreamer mp3 to indicate that if you have any applications that depend on gstreamer and you have the mp3 feature installed, you should get the package with that RDepends (which would be a gstreamer mp3 plugin in this case). * The Ubuntu distro upgrade GUI should be exposed from the Software Library. * Google should offer a link for any search terms that match Add/Remove... and Software Library items that will cause firefox to install the appropriate application/feature directly from the configured Ubuntu repositories rather than them going on a wild goose chase downloading stuff via links from who-knows-whom. Perhaps firefox should tell google what repositories are configured somehow. This is how I'd like my computer and my parent's computer to behave (which I have to help them with when it is difficult). -- Tristan Wibberley Any opinion expressed is mine (or else I'm playing devils advocate for the sake of a good argument). My employer had nothing to do with this communication. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Fast-user-switch-applet not on panel by default
On Thu, 2007-10-04 at 19:20 +1300, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: On Oct 4, 2007, at 2:08 AM, Vincent Untz wrote: This can be extremly confusing. Someone will add the applet and see nothing. Then adds it again. Again. Again. Creates a user. And finally sees 4 applets... ... That's a symptom of another problem: to add the applet, or any applet, to your panel makes sense only if you already understand applets as an idea. (And calling them items in the GUI doesn't fix this problem.) Add to Panel assumes that people will be bored one day and decide to fill their panel with items, selecting whatever items look interesting at the time. Ptui. I think many, many more people would find the panel items useful if they were configured from the relevant window -- for example, if the Users Groups window had a checkbox labelled something like Show menu for fast account switching. That checkbox was disabled if there is only one user account, and it would be much more obvious why it was disabled if it was here than if it was a zillion miles away in the Add to Panel window. I agree. Similarly, the clock could be configured in a tab in the Time Date window, the Tomboy Notes item could be a checkbox in Tomboy's preferences, the presence of the Trash item could be a checkbox in Nautilus's preferences, the presence of the Show Desktop and Window List items could be checkboxes in the Windows preferences, and so on. I think the difference between launcher, applet, and status notification needs to be more obvious and some sanitising wouldn't go amiss. For example, GAIM uses a status notification icon to access the application whilst it's running - so I can't move it anywhere unless I move all my notifications. It also doesn't make sense for the icon to be something that shows after going to Applications-Internet-Gaim... rather Gaim should just be an applet. The Evolution contact list could offer to give you Gaim (from an address card with a handle on a supported service) as well as gnome-open when opening an irc: uri, etc. Similarly for Tomboy. Why does the use case for an adhoc note-keeper involve starting a search program/recently used list before I can just add a damned note ? Tomboy should be a launcher or applet (doesn't much matter which in this case since it isn't doing anything between clicks and keypresses). The status notification area should be for transitive elements, Launchers for duplicative first actions (essentially a mere applet optimisation), and applets for dynamic first actions - as well as triggered UI and dynamic display. It would be nice to stick the Evolution contact list on as a launcher by default too. -- Tristan Wibberley Any opinion expressed is mine (or else I'm playing devils advocate for the sake of a good argument). My employer had nothing to do with this communication. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: User Interface of the X Configuration Tool
On Wed, 2007-06-06 at 10:46 +0300, Mikko Ohtamaa wrote: In the UK, either screen or monitor tend to be used. People more commonly refer to it as 'the computer screen' I think, 'monitor' is seen as a little more technical (although not much). I've been using 'screen' when writing documentation anyway... I am not native English speaker, but isn't it so that a screen can be also a television. It's not necessary a computer monitor which is plugged in. It's probably important to remember that non-technical users (at least in the UK) also use the word screen to refer to a dialogue box/druid page because of experiences of computer systems that they've seen operating, or used, where navigating through a set of computerised forms means going through a series of screens. I think it is a bad idea to use the word screen due to the common use of this very closely related, but very different, meaning. -- Tristan These opinions are my own and are not related to any opinions of my employer. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Feedback from What New Users Want BoF at ubucon
On Wed, 2006-09-13 at 20:21 +0200, Sebastien Bacher wrote: Le mardi 05 septembre 2006 à 00:43 -0700, Corey Burger a écrit : I hate to do this, but I tagging this post again, because I did not get a response for either Sebastian Bacher or Daniel. Not set on the notification, but I would like to see the help icon restored. We discussed that on IRC, I don't like the option very much to have the yelp icon as launcher on the panel because that's not something users run daily and they should not have it on the screen all the time then. Some other options mentioned: - having another menu label next to Applications, Places, System. My opinion is that it would be too many too menus, especially for people who change their configuration to use one panel And it is functionally equivalent to the launcher but taking more space, requires reading, and is very hard to remove. A launcher with a sensible icon is way better than this one - having a first startup guide. It has been decided some time ago that the first startup guide is not something Ubuntu wants to use - using some sort of update-notifier notification going away when the user has read it. That would be near of the launcher option since the launcher is easy to remove from the panel - using a notification bubble pointing on the system menu and explaining that the help is available from it All of which will be totally or mostly ignored by most new users - exactly the group of people that need it the most. None of them got a consensus on IRC. What would you people prefer for that? launcher with the current System Documentation (or similar) icon for me. -- Tristan Any similarity between the opinions expressed here and the opinions of my employer are purely coincidental. -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Logout screen logos.
I like the new green logout logo. But something I've wondered for a while... should hibernate really use the standby symbol? I think it should use the power symbol like shut down, leaving standby for sleep alone, since hibernate is actually one of the two ways to switch off and only sleep puts the computer into standby. Also, should the restart logo be the same colour as hibernate? Restart's primary function is that it does the same as shutdown but starts up immediately again, and has as drastic a resetting effect. I think it should be the same colour as the shutdown logo to represent this similarity, rather than the same colour as hibernate. To summarise these thoughts: Hibernate is off and should have the power symbol like Shut Down. Shut Down and Restart are system maintenance actions which do the same thing as each other, but one of them also (and merely) cuts out the need to press a button to start the system up again - so they should be more familiar by sharing their colour. -- Tristan Wibberley -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Logout dialog : strings
Eric Feliksik wrote: Tristan Wibberley wrote: * Log out : Close your session so that other users can log in. Letting other users log in isn't necessarily the intended consequence of logging out, so so seems an odd way to say it. How about Close your session, which lets other users log in. so sounds perfectly fine to me, I'm all in favor of Close your session so that other users can log in. (I'm not a native speaker either, but so describes a consequence rather than a goal here - native speakers might say the that should be removed. which lets other users log in doesn't sound nice to me ) You're right about the which ..., but I still think so gives the wrong impression. I think so *does* denote an intended consequence when applied to an imperative. How about Close your session and return to the login screen. I think that's accurate and doesn't imply anything it shouldn't, nor does it sound odd. * Switch : Let another user log in while your session remains open. Nice, I think the password-protection can be left unmentioned, people will find out, really. You're right about password protection, but then the lock screen doesn't need to say that either - because Switch User just does a Lock Screen and then presents the login screen. You didn't mention anything about the other thing I said: I think it would be good to emphasise the difference from 'log out' by more directly referring to the words used in 'log out' With the new suggestion for Log Out I gave above that would be: Return to the login screen without closing your session.. With Manu's original phrase, that would be ... without closing your session. rather than ... while your session remains open. If you prefer the original overall, I don't think it should use while since other user's should be able to log in even after your session gets closed - many people over 30 from the north of England would say do something while five to say do something and stop doing it at five o'clock (I know at least one person from Wigan and one from Sheffield that use it like that). It would be a bit bizarre to tell them that other users can only log in until you close your session and to imply that they won't be able to log in after that - unless you define a new en_GB_north locale (that should probably be done anyway, actually, they still use thee, thou, thy, thine, etc... in some parts :) -- Tristan Wibberley -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: (Yet another) new logout dialog
Manu Cornet wrote: About the choice of designing a dialog with 6 or 7 options, I'm not the one who decides about this (I'm just trying to make a good layout with nice icons and text), but I do think it's a logical choice. * I believe the main purpose for this multi-option dialog is to let users have this main top-right applet flow to let them perform all exit action. Then shouldn't this be a separate dialogue? I don't even *have* the top right button - my panel stops about halfway across the screen and it doesn't have the button even then. IMHO, this is a foolish consistency. Personally, if you're just trying to give a quick way to manage your session and computer power state, I think the dialogue that you get from that button should just have log out, lock screen (named Lock Session), hibernate (named Power Off) or shutdown if hibernate is not considered safe, and cancel. If they want to do anything else, there is always System-Log Out, and System-Shut Down (or there was in GNOME 2.14). If it were done like that I think it would then make a lot of sense to have such different actions on the dialogue. Maybe alter the GNOME dialogues to give the same feel as the top-right exit icon - and this dialogue *does* feel *really* nice. * Log out as the name of the menu entry is definitely misleading, and we're trying to find the best wording to replace it (suggestions welcome !). See above re the foolish consistency. If it's such a labour to have it all make sense the user probably won't fathom the chosen idiom. -- Tristan Wibberley -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Log Out menu has too many items
Øivind Hoel wrote: http://www.gnome-cn.org/Members/jcome/screenshots/gnome-2-14-screenshots/newmenu-1.png/view Oh the wonders of google :) Seriously though, I think the ubuntu dialog is an improvement over the gnome dialogs. We just need some polish, that's all. I know I've said it before, but I don't agree. I think the one click then walk away is great, and having shutting down as a conceptually more significant thing than merely a subtype of logging out is important for those who aren't as logically inclined as us computing old hats. I think where Ubuntu improves on GNOME is in including sleep and hibernate as forms of shutting down - which, as a concept, they are. But, for me, the biggest problem is that logging out or shutting down is such a short task which begins with the corporate, practical style of the panel menus, but whose second and final click is on a dialogue that is in a more fashionable style. I don't think the two genres mix well in the middle of such a short task. I would also like to see something that neither logout dialogues posses and that is in making switch user less obvious. I think Log Out is the right thing, in most cases, for users to do when another user wants to use the same head. Only when they know they've got something that needs to keep running would they be best served by using switch user. In all other cases (especially with GNOME starting as quickly as it does, and using as much memory as it does) Log Out is better. Since handing over to another user is *actually* switching user, many who don't understand what it *really* is would press that if they think it is a form of logging out, as it is presented in both dialogues. -- Tristan Wibberley -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Logout dialog
Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: [snip] That would solve your father's problem, but at the expense of making switching extremely difficult to find. I rather think the item needs to be renamed to express the idea that it's *temporary* switching. Switch User is awful, awful wording. How about Lock Session/Dual Login? In the medium term, the difference between Sleep and Hibernate should be abolished by letting Sleep suspend to disk *and* to RAM. So if you have power, waking up works quickly; and if you lose power for any reason, waking up still works. (This would also lessen the need to maintain lists of hardware for which the Sleep command should or should not be available.) As long as the user gets clear feedback that they should not turn off the mains power yet. On a related note, how much harm can cutting the power while in the process of hibernating do compared to cutting the power while running normally? In the long term, the difference between Sleep and Shut Down could be abolished the same way: the computer could automatically turn itself off once it had been sleeping for a configurable period. I think the real full shutdown has a particular meaning (ie, the ability to open the case and replace non hotplug hardware). It is probably too dangerous to do this. -- Tristan Wibberley -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
Re: Logout dialog
Who wrote: On 3/2/06, Matthew Paul Thomas [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: [snip re switch user wording] I agree, the wording isn't great. I think also that the whole idea is difficult because it isn't obvious how to get back to the original user: could we add a dialogue on switching saying 'this will keep your current session running and allow another user to log on as well. In order to return to this session log out of the new one or push ctrl+alt+f[x] I think it would be best not to recommend the key combo's but just tell them they can return from the other user's locked session or the login screen (that would make it clear that they should expect the active session to be locked when they get back to the console and that their own password may not work until they switch back). I think the lock screen (or session) button should present the unlock dialogue immediately with such a notification, and should disappear after timing out as normal. So the user can see how unlocking is going to work. I think the unlock dialogue should have a brief instruction for both unlocking and switching back: To unlock this session, type the password for the below named user then click Unlock To go to (or start) another session, click Switch User... - you can come back to this session in the same way from any locked session or from the login screen. Also, I notice when you log out of a second user session the lock screen (or unlock screen) dialogue only appears when you move the mouse - I thought it had crashed first time round... I have just been playing with the user switching, and there seem to be some confusing bugs (or, IMHO, nasty features), I will look at the bugs listed and report them if necessary. -- Tristan Wibberley -- ubuntu-desktop mailing list ubuntu-desktop@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-desktop
