Re: UI Review Suggestions - Preference Dialogs

[Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>]

On Thu, 2002-11-21 at 02:49, Damien Covey wrote:
> Reinout van Schouwen wrote:
> 
> >On 19 Nov 2002, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Scale and Stretch could perhaps be renamed/reworded.  For example,
> >>perhaps Stretch could become Fit to Screen, and Scale could be Maximize
> >>Image.  Or something like that.
> >>
> How does scale work for maximise?  For example, if your screen is 
> 600x800 doesnt scale make a 1024x768 image look like a 600x800 image to 
> fit your desktop?  Therefore the Maximise terminology that you ask for 
> doesnt really make sence, to me at least.  Stretch sounds more like 
> maximise.  I take it the complete oposite to you.

Hmm, actually, doesn't Scale take the largest component of the image
(either width or height), fit it to the corresponding part of your
screen-size, and then change the other component of the image by a
proportional amount (make a 100x50 image fit an 800x600 screen by making
it 800x400)?  If it's this confusing that, despite chaning my background
at least once a week on 3 different machines, I still can't just know
for sure which term does what, it indicates the terms *needs* to be
changed...

I mean, Scale and Stretch really sound like the exact same thing to me -
there is nothing other than the preview to indicate which one "warps"
the image, and even the preview usually doesn't show it clearly.  I
agree Maximize isn't the best wording - perhaps changing Sretch to "Fit
to Screen" and Scale to "Scale to Screen Size" ?  Going with the rest of
the verb terminology, "Wallpaper" isn't a verb, "Center" isn't that
descriptive, "No Image" isn't a verb, and (altho not a usability issue)
a "tile" option seems to be missing (unless that's that Wallpaper does -
it's completely undescriptive).  It doesn't help that, for the
background I have now, since it fits my screen-size perfectly, all the
"previews" look the exact same, and don't convey *any* useful
information to me.

Even if the names aren't changed, clearer "icons" would be nice.  The
pre-made "diagram" icons I mentioned in my previous mail would work
nicely, by exaggerating the possible effect to make it clear and obvious
how an image may be fitted/distorted to the background.

It would also get rid of the ***-slow loading time for the capplet if it
doesn't scale the image 4 times (altho I still think whatever bug that
makes it so slow should be fixed...)

> 
> Anyway, I like the terminology how it stands.
> 
> -Damien
> 
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
-- 
Sean Middleditch <elanthis awesomeplay com>
AwesomePlay Productions, Inc.