On 03/02/12 03:52, Barros Pena, Belen wrote:
Hi Joshua,
Thanks for the feedback. I don't have definite answers to your questions:
I think they should come out of a discussion between design and dev teams.
I agree.
My first stab to some answers below.
1) where the visual design differentiates from the toolkit (Gtk+) is the
intention that we should use the toolkit provided widgets or create our
own to more closely match the visual design?
(for example the tabs for notebook pages in the 'Building Packages'
screen).
I have no experience with GTK, but I would hope that standard widgets can
be themed. So the idea would be using toolkit widgets themed to match the
visual style. Is this assumption incorrect?
The widgets can indeed be themed, but in the favour of visual
consistency across the system I usually try to avoid it unless there's a
compelling reason to do so.
Perhaps we can address differences between visual design and toolkit on
a case-by-case basis? Implement with the toolkit provided widgets and OS
theme and review which things we might want to enhance later?
If no toolkit widget exist for a certain UI control, we have to either
replace it with a toolkit widget or create our own, but I really hope this
is the exception rather than the rule.
Oh yes, I don't think that's the case for Hob. It was the exception for
some work I did on Moblin but certainly not the rule, in fact that
widget is part of the standard toolkit now.
2) When implementing Hob v1 I tried to follow the GNOME HIG[1] to ensure
the app would fit in with the common Linux desktop environments. Should
v2 continue that trend? Where the visual design might differ with the
HIG which should be preferred?
(i.e. the button being flush with the bottom of the window in the Image
Configuration screen is what first struck me here).
Nothing in the design should blatantly contradict the GNOME HIG: in
general they are good design practice and we wouldn't ignore them without
a reason to do so. If there are any exceptions (like the primary action
button one) we could look at them on a case by case basis. I don't think
leaving 12 pixels between the bottom of the window edge and the button
will make or break the interface. What's important is that the location
and spacing of those 'primary action' buttons are consistent across the
whole Hob. If we feel we shouldn't break the 12px rule, I am sure Mikael
will agree that the button effect is not that important, and that we can
lift it up to fit the spacing GNOME rules.
This is great to read. I was hoping to elicit such a response and just
wanted to make sure engineering and design are on the same page here. It
feels like we are?
I understand that 12px won't make or break the interface but I'm
definitely pro consistent UI across the whole OS where possible. I
expect I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'll leave it at that.
3) where the visual design uses various colours I assume the intention
is to use the colours from the operating systems theme? This is slightly
more difficult programatically than hard-coding colours but leads to (in
my opinion) a much more pleasing visual experience.
(i.e. tooltip and button colours)
Yes, using the colours from the OS theme is probably the best thing to do.
Awesome! I'd go so far as to say it's definitely the best thing to do. I
didn't manage it with Hob 1 and had some ugly screenshots sent my way
from poor users who dared to use a different theme than me.
Finally, I notice that the titlebar calls it HOB, instead of Hob - was
that intentional? Hob was always mean as a name, not an acronym.
It's a typo: sorry about that. It should say Hob of course.
No need to apologise. Just wanted to make sure.
Thanks for your response,
Joshua
--
Joshua Lock
Yocto Project "Johannes factotum"
Intel Open Source Technology Centre
_______________________________________________
yocto mailing list
yocto@yoctoproject.org
https://lists.yoctoproject.org/listinfo/yocto
