Re: To answer your question about the upcoming Style-Guide...

[Tom Vogt <tom lemuria org>]

Dan Kaminsky <effugas@best.com> wrote:
> >I just want them there for those reasons I have quoted several times now. I
> >believe I have a strong point here or I wouldn't argue that much. I also
> >have not yet heard a good argument AGAINST - and yours especially is a
> >different proposal to the same end, but not an argument contrary to mine,
> or
> >am I missing the point?
> 
> The argument against panel booters is we don't *want* the user to load all
> of his or her apps by panel in the same way and for the same reason we don't
> want the user to rely on the desktop to put his or her various junk.

are we talking about different things here? this smells like a huge
misunderstanding.
I do *NOT* want the users to put everything on the panel. I want them to put
it into a FEW folders that are on the panel. I don't want the six most
common apps as icons on the panel, I want them in an "apps" folder. this is
far LESS messy than putting everything in one folder, even if you create
that very same sorting to subfolders in there.


> do it because it's *EASY*, but they make such a mess and then blame us for
> it.  By the same token, panel app loading can be made very easy, but it's
> really only appropriate for very few applications, and even then the icons
> should be at least *possibly* smaller.

DON'T put them on the panel!

ok, I'll try myself on ascii art. here's what the default panel looks like
right now:


+-+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-+
| |      ^|                                                              | |
|<| Gnome |                                                              |>|
| |       |                                                              | |
+-+-------+--------------------------------------------------------------+-+


here is what I propose instead:

+-+-------+-------+-------+--------------------------------------+-------+-+
| |      ^|      ^|      ^|                                      | 11:25 | |
|<|System |  Apps | Games |                                      | Jul26 |>|
| |       |       |       |                                      |  1998 | |
+-+-------+-------+-------+--------------------------------------+-------+-+

where "Apps" and "Games" are folders that contain the appropriate programs,
system contains everything else and the clock (asclock or whatever you
prefer) can be clicked and will open the calender app.

in addition, resting the mouse over the empty panel space for 3 seconds (or
whatever) should pop up a tooltip the way I proposed yesterday.

the icons/programs do NOT go directly to the panel unless the user
explicitly wants it. they go to the folders.

example:

          +-------+
          |Netscap|
          |-------|
          |LyX    |
          |-------|
          |xwpe   |
+-+-------+-------+-------+--------------------------------------+-------+-+
| |      ^|      ^|      ^|                                      | 11:25 | |
|<|System |  Apps | Games |                                      | Jul26 |>|
| |       |       |       |                                      |  1998 | |
+-+-------+-------+-------+--------------------------------------+-------+-+

see what I mean?

now we do have the Linux Software Map, don't we? let's use it. the user can
define in the properties for the folder that if a new program is installed,
the lsm entry is checked. if it contains the keyword "game", it will be
installed in the "Games" folder. if it contains the keyword "system", it
will be put in that folder, everything else in apps. JUST AN EXAMPLE! this
way the user has an easy, consistent way to control where programs will be
put.

a screenplay can serve to show these possibilities. it surely is not an
argument against this proposal.


-- 
The universe does not have laws -- it has habits, and habits can be broken.