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

On Fri, Jul 24, 1998 at 04:49:35PM -0700, Dan Kaminsky wrote:
> >> Uh?  You kidding?  If they were any bigger they'd be hard to miss.  :-)
> >> Seriously, small icons in Win32 are 16x16 pixels and they're completely
> >> clickable.  It's not hard to select lines of text, and they're about this
> >> size if not smaller.  Almost everything you've said is valid, but not
> this
> >> :-)
> >
> >it does require more concentration  to hit a small button ... it is very
> >easy to hit a 48x48 button ... and I for one like it that way ...
> >plus since I'm writing th epanel .. that's the way it will most likely end
> >up :) ...
> Well, you *really* should consider letting the user make this choice, not
> you.

had it only been a problem of the icons, it wouldn't be such a problem ... but
it would also have to work with applets and the panel doesn't have a set width

therefore any solution that I can think of is going to be ugly, especially on
the applet side

> >really if the buttons were smaller, what would happen if you put a
> >cd player in there ... you'd have a wide bar with a bunch of small buttons
> >on it
> User's choice.  Actually, the icons can be small while the bar is still
> tall, you just have to allow two 24x24 buttons to stack..."yeah, just"

again ... because of the way the panel is designed, (not graphically,
but internally) this would be very hard ... when to stack and when not to
stack ... I'm against limits of size as they will produce non-uniform
behaviour ...

one thing that is already quite possible is to write an applet that can
incorporate more launchers in those sizes ... that's beyond the scope
of the panel ... there may be more support for it later, but it's more of
an issue if someone would write such an applet with a smart interface

> >> >that's why there are all those ways to hide the panels out of the way
> >>
> >> Hurm.  I think the need to hide something shows a flaw in design...
> >
> >nope .. I don't see why it should be smaller ... I want to start apps
> >fast ... a bunch of small icons would not do too good
> I don't know about that.  Do you think so little of small icons that you
> don't even think the user should be able to use them?

no .. I think it takes far more concentration to hit a small button ...

but the point is moot ... I'm not putting small icons in ... there are
too many problems with it, and it doesn't really solve anything in my
view ... it doesn't seem worth my time

> >find it nice enough ... I have two larger xterms open usually, one in the
> >upper left and one on the lower right ...
> To each their own, I guess.  We need to do some usability testing.  Another
> reason why the screenplay app is nice...we can watch users try to use our
> interface from afar...

again .. it doesn't really matter ... if you don't care put on a full edge
panel ... 

> >yup .. and most likely other distros will follow suit soon after .. I know
> >at least stampede wants to install both ... and except for people like
> >caldera and suse (who have invested in KDE already) ... I think most
> >will use it
> Caldera and Redhat disagreeing on GUIs?  Interesting.

hmmm .. and what's new under the sun ... also now we have a major dist which
will be CDE only ... so we will see what makes it ... I guess each has it's
own market ...


George Lebl <>
  The following implements RSA in perl and is illegal to export from the US:

          #!/bin/perl -sp0777i<X+d*lMLa^*lN%0]dsXx++lMlN/dsM0<j]dsj
          $/=unpack('H*',$_);$_=`echo 16dio\U$k"SK$/SM$n\EsN0p[lN*1

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]