Re: Reprise of the panel layout proposal

[Jonas De Vuyst <jonas devuyst advalvas be>]

On 20 Jun 2001 16:15:43 -0700, James Ramsey wrote:
> The first mentioning of this proposal got sidetracked
> when just about everybody discussed some of the panels
> in the layout not being removable and no one discussed
> any other of its merits or demerits. So, to reiterate,
> here it is, with some changes in phrasing:

Since nobody replied let this newbie give it a try :-).

> 
> BASELINE CONFIG
> ---------------
> 
> This config is the part that is nonremovable except by
> advanced users (presuming that GNOME 2.0 has user
> levels). It has two panels: a modified menu panel, a
> slightly modified aligned panel in the lower-right
> hand corner containing solely a pager.

I personally don't like the user levels, in option dialogs it would be
better to have a "more" button (or perhaps a custom widget for this
purpose?) that would hide/show the advanced options.

The reason for this is that it's not possible to categorise people into
groups. Try to imagine using a program you're not really familiar with
in beginner mode, if you wouldn't find a certain option you would have
to activate the advanced mode. Now imagine a novice user not finding the
option, would s/he think of the user level concept? Probably not.

> 
> 
> Menu Panel
> ==========
> 
> **Detailed description of the menu panel**
> 
> The menu panel would have only two items: a menu
> labeled the "Main Menu" at the left end, and a menu
> labeled "Running Tasks" at the right end. 

This sounds nice, the only problem I see with it is that it would
probably confuse the heck out of Macintosh users as they would be used
to having the application menus in there as well. But this is probably a
non-issue.

> 
> The "Main Menu" would be pretty much the GNOME "start"
> menu. It would have at least five entries: "Programs",
> "Settings", and "Help", "Lock screen" and "Logout".
> There should not be *much* more than five entries,
> though, maybe just a distribution or vendor-specific
> menu, if that. 

I'd personally would like to see the programs and settings menus (why
are those seperate BTW?) merged into the main menu. I don't like
navigating through deep menu structures.

> 
> The "Running Tasks" menu would be a list of, well,
> running tasks that would be no different then what one
> gets now if one clicks on the icon at the right end of
> the current menu. However, if there were no running
> tasks, the menu would have an item, saying "No tasks
> running right now".

I like this except for the fact that it's much nicer to be able to
switch between windows with a single click instead of two clicks.

> 
> This menu panel, as with the current one, would not be
> movable; it would always be at the top of the screen.

Agreed. I don't think many people move there menus.

> 
> 
> **Justification for the setup of the menu panel**
> 
> The reason for labeling the menu listing the tasks
> "Running Tasks" rather than leaving as it is now, a
> menu labeled by a small icon representing the
> currently
> running task, is that the term "Running Tasks" is
> descriptive and looks like a menu label, while the
> icon currently used doesn't look like a menu label at
> all, and it is easy to overlook.

A small, not important detail: would the menu contain the task currently
activated?

> 
> Further, having the "Running Tasks" menu have an entry
> when there are no running tasks, rather than be
> totally
> empty when there are no running tasks (as it is now),
> is because 1) an empty menu is nearly invisible, so
> that a user might click on an empty "Running Tasks"
> menu and conclude that the menu does nothing or is
> broken 2) an empty menu looks wrong or broken, so that
> users who click on an empty "Running Tasks" menu and
> *do* see the speck of an empty menu might conclude
> that the menu is broken.

Why not hide it if there are no running tasks?

> 
> Also, "No tasks running right now" is a good choice
> for the entry in the "Running Tasks" menu when there
> are no running tasks because it not only shows that
> there are, well, no running tasks, but that there
> could be running tasks as the session goes on--which
> is why the entry is "No tasks running right now" not
> just "No tasks running". "Right now" also hints to the
> user that the contents of the menu change with time.

I think the user would click on it anyway. I have a feeling it's better
to just hide it.

> 
> I figure that a menu labeled "Main Menu" will probably
> be more obvious than a menu from a button with a GNOME
> logo, and that a user looking for where to change
> settings or find help would probably go to "Main Menu"
> just to see if what they are looking for might be
> there. This is also why "Settings" and "Help" are in
> this main menu, and also why the menu has only a
> handful of entries, so that "Settings" and "Help"
> would be easy to find.

"Main menu" is indeed better than a logo. What I don't understand is why
a user should be able to easily reach settings, a beginner would
probably not want to mess with his/her settings. Rather finding programs
is much more important to the overall user I think.

> 
> The proposed layout of the menu panel is motivated by
> several reasons: 
> 
> 1) Fitts' Law. The "Main Menu" and the "Running Tasks"
> are likely to be frequently accessed, so it makes
> sense to put them at corners of the screen where the
> user can just zoom the mouse right over.

I've been waiting for this a long time.

> 
> 2) Having a "Running Tasks" menu available means that
> a user who does not have room for both a tasklist
> applet and all their other panel "stuff", especially
> buttons, can still have something to use to quickly
> access running tasks.

If the menu bar is only going to contain two menus then that's a lot of
wasted screen estate. I'd much rather see a task list merged in the
menu.

> 
> 3) A "Main Menu" better accounts for entries that
> don't "fit" well into categories, such as "Lock
> Screen", "Log Out", "Run ...". Currently, these are
> under the "System" menu of the menu panel, a menu that
> seems to be an ambiguously named catch-all for things
> that don't fit well under the "Programs" or "Help"
> menu. 
> 
> A "Main Menu" is also in a sense an ambiguously named
> catch-all menu, but one that seems to suggest that it
> is the menu to go to if one is in doubt about what
> part of the GUI to go to do "stuff", whatever that
> "stuff" is.

Agreed.

> 
> 4) Simplicity. With only two menus, there are fewer
> places to look for "stuff", and those places stand out
> more.

True, but a task list would much better use the available screen estate.
We should try to make use of Fitts' law here.
> 
> Aligned Panel with Pager
> ========================
> 
> **Detailed description of the aligned panel with
> pager**
> 
> This panel, as said before, would solely contain a
> pager and be in the lower right-hand corner.
> 
> The modifications, which are old and much-flamed over
> news, would be 1) the panel applet could not be
> removed from the panel (except by advanced users), and
> 2) the panel itself could not be removed (except by
> advanced users).
> 
> **Justification for the setup of this panel**
> 
> A pager of some sort is needed to navigate workspaces.

I don't like panels that don't use the entire border. They look funny
and when maximizing a window (which is especially handy when on low-res)
there's this useless part of the desktop still visible.

I agree that it shouldn't be removable BTW :-).

> 
> 
> INITIAL CONFIG
> --------------
> 
> Aligned Panel with Buttons and/or applets
> =========================================
> 
> This panel would contain various buttons and applets.
> The default contents would vary depending on the
> distributor or vendor. Sun, for example, might have
> icons for StarOffice, the HotSpot browser, and a
> terminal. Ximian might have icons for Evolution and
> Red Carpet. By default, the panel would have hide
> buttons.
> 
> The main modification would be to have a message
> dialog pop up if the panel were removed telling how to
> get the panel back. Other than that, it would be a
> normal panel.
> 
> **Justification for the setup of this panel**
> 
> The point of this panel is 1) to be a dock for
> commonly used apps, and 2) to show off what the GNOME
> panel can do. 
> 
> Note that unlike the other two panels, the presence of
> this panel is not so critical. If a user removes it by
> mistake and can't figure out how to get it back, he or
> she can use the menu panel to get real work done.
> Thus, this panel could be removable without too much
> harm done.

It would be much better to merge these two panels and making this a
bottom-alligned panel I think. Also the task list could easily fit on it
(which would make the top menu rather empty though).

> 
> CONCLUSION
> ----------
> 
> If you have comments about the layout of the panels,
> *please* make them, especially if you find that they
> violate some good UI principles or something like
> that.
> 
> If you have comments about whether the proposal is
> feasible, definitely send them.
> 
> If you have comments about the nonremovability of the
> panels, take them to the original thread. The whole
> point of me starting this one is to deal with *other*
> issues besides that one.

I followed the other thread a bit and I mostly agreed with you about the
nonremovability.

> 
> 
> 
> =====
> 
> 
> ----I am a fool for Christ. Mostly I am a fool.----
> 
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get personalized email addresses from Yahoo! Mail
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
> 
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-gui-list mailing list
> gnome-gui-list gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-gui-list
> 

- Jonas.