Re: the same page

[Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>]

I'm not talking about the hardware performance or memory capacity, or
other such figures. The problem is that PDAs...

a) have "exotic" methods of input
b) present special design challenges due to small screens (aggravated by
low resolution, but even a very high resolution screen of that size
would have special design challenges)

(a) will probably be aided by the accessibility extensions in GTK2, and
may not be such a big issue.

However, many design directions taken by the GNOME/GTK(/X?) system are
not really appropriate to PDAs. For example, windows are not a concept
that I think is particularly desirable in a PDA. Nor are traditional
GTK-style menubars. Obviously things like the GNOME panel and Nautilus
are not appropriate interfaces even if the iPAQ hardware were fast
enough to easily accomodate them. The list goes on...

We'll need some radical interface improvements to accomodate PDAs. Some
of the suggestions Jim made at the last GUADEC could go part of the way
here, for example having interfaces described somewhat more in the
abstract with specific interface specs for traditional targets (thus
allowing interfaces to be tweaked to look how you want on the desktop
but still have an abstract form that can generate a PDA interface).

I agree with Jim that the notion of your PDA being able to be your PC
and being able to plug into projectors, monitors, keyboards, mice, etc
(and having your applications migrate onto those things and adapt their
interface to suit the new resolution / input method) is attractive. The 
point is that I don't think the GTK/GNOME of today is appropriate for
PDAs.

-Seth

On Fri, 2001-12-21 at 13:11, Jim Gettys wrote:
> Most of the core Gnome libraries are already a standard part of
> the Familiar distribution for the iPAQ, as are a number of applications
> built using Python/GTK technology using Glade.
> 
> All this (and the base window system and Linux) fits in less than 16 megabytes
> of flash, and runs on 16 meg of RAM.  Given that the current iPAQ's have
> both 32 meg of flash, and 64 meg of RAM, there is plenty of space....
> 
> We need a specialized window manager (sawfish is not the answer, unless
> or until you are running across the net to a remote display), and a file
> browser/panel gizmo would be nice.
> 
> Plenty to do for those who want some fun hacking....
> 
> Get off your rear ends folks, and come join the party...
>                          - Jim Gettys
> 
> > Sender: gnome-private-members-admin gnome org
> > From: Xavier Bestel <n0made free fr>
> > Date: 21 Dec 2001 00:21:34 +0100
> > To: Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>
> > Cc: Alan Cox <alan redhat com>, Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>,
> >         Trevor Curtis <tcurtis somaradio ca>, gnome-hackers gnome org
> > Subject: Re: the same page
> > -----
> > le jeu 20-12-2001 à 21:46, Seth Nickell a écrit :
> > > > Do you think Gnome3.0 will run on something equivalent to today's Ipaq ?
> > >
> > > I hope not, at least not without major interface changes to accomodate
> > > that PDA.
> >
> > Why ? The core libs, a panel on the bottom, a specially crafted WM (or
> > just a special sawfish theme ?) and here you go. If only it could fit in
> > 32 MB flash/64 MB ram, kernel and base distrib included ...
> >
> >         Xav
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > gnome-hackers mailing list
> > gnome-hackers gnome org
> > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
> 


_______________________________________________
gnome-hackers mailing list
gnome-hackers gnome org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers