Hey Ken, Been on vacation for 2wks and just catching up. Kenneth Wimer wrote: > On Friday 20 July 2007 16:28:18 Bill Filler wrote: >> Ken, >> The screens look good. See my comments below: >> >> On Jul 20, 2007, at 7:11 AM, Kenneth Wimer wrote: >>> On Friday 20 July 2007 08:52:32 you wrote: >>> <snip> >>> >>>> Thanks for the pictures :) >>> >>> Glas you like them :-) >>> >>>> A few questions: >>>> * Is "Settings" part so important that has to be always available? >>>> Is it about device settings or application settings?
I think for the short term it is a stretch to try and modify all applications to consistently export their app-specific settings to a separate place. But I think the system-wide settings are good. For example, the browser should use the system network settings and not have its own configuration. Bob >>> >>> This is one of the major questions. Should we have a global settings >>> "app" in which all settings are stored for all apps or should we >>> have some settings tool available per app. Apple does it mainly with >>> the global settings iirc and it gets kinda annoying. The Pepper Pad >>> seemed to do it better with the important per-app settings available >>> in the app itself. >> >> On the Pepper Pad there are global settings which apply to the >> overall system (i.e. wifi, date/time, power mgmt, etc..) and then >> app specific settings. The way you have the UI designed with the >> Settings button always visible, perhaps when you are viewing the >> Home/ Applications screen the Settings would take you to the system >> wide settings page >> and when you are in an application, the Settings would take you to >> the app specific settings page. > > Exactly. I wasn't sure how to visually differintiate between the > system wide settings and the per app settings nor if it is necessary. > >> >>>> * How one switches between an active application and applications >>>> view? >>>> * How one swtiches between applications? >>> >>> Another "great idea" which I realized in advance would be popular :p >>> >>> Note also that there are no close or minimize buttons on the open >>> apps. The idea behind is this: >>> >>> The "home" button always has a way to get to the "apps" page where >>> one can pick an app, start it, restart/rechoose it. Note that in >>> this version there are also no menus. Everything you see shows up >>> fullscreen, although some things in the status bar will be an almost >>> fullscreen overlay (which one could argue is just an associated >>> pop-up and therefor really a menu). >>> >>> Using a task switcher menu turns out to be just as many steps, and >>> more confusing that keeping things flat and simple. Again, this is >>> an idea and I'm not really sure if it is possible to realize such >>> functionality. >> >> Seems like this model could work, but would add a few steps for some >> operations. If I understand correctly, if I'm in an app and I want to >> close it, I would have to do 1)click home button 2)click "apps" >> button from home page 3) select my app 4) press stop/restart. That's >> a lot of steps which would be eliminated if you had a close button >> somewhere in the marquee. Or maybe you never really "close" an app >> because it gets hibernated when not using it so that's not an issue? >> > > The original idea was to never have to close or minimize an app. Not > sure how saving document changes would work. > >> Regarding switching between running apps, wouldn't using a task >> switcher directly from the marquee (i.e. a drop down menu listing the >> running apps) be one less step than clicking "home"->"apps"->select >> app? >> > > I've tried to stay away from using any menus, as on smaller devices > they are hard to touch and in high contrast lighting hard to see. > Praticaly speaking we might have to use such a menu. Earlier mockups > show such a menu so I am leaving it out for now. > >> Also, if an app had multiple open views, how do you navigate between >> views within the application? There should be some indication of the >> open views within an app and a way to navigate them. >> > > depending upon how the apps work this might very well be a problem > which could be solved by tabs (just like the browser issue). > >>>> * Browser does not seem to have tabs, it would be very interesting >>>> to see how it's gonna look with tabs (tabs seem to be quite popular >>>> demand (https://bugs.maemo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1695) also UI Style >>>> Guide page suggest browser would have tabs). >>> >>> Erm, I knew I forgot something. Naturally, I will be adding tabs :-) >>> >>>> Probably applications and settings stuff was outlined elsewhere, in >>>> this case apologize for my ignorance and kindly ask to provide me >>>> with a link where I could read more about it... >>> >>> No worries, you've noticed the major issues - here would be a good >>> place to discuss them >>> >>> Ken >>> >>> -- >>> Ubuntu-mobile mailing list >>> Ubuntu-mobile@lists.ubuntu.com >>> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/ >>> listinfo/ubuntu-mobile -- Ubuntu-mobile mailing list Ubuntu-mobile@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-mobile
