Workspaces are not activities (was Re: interapplication communication)

[Owen Taylor <otaylor redhat com>]

On Tue, 2010-01-05 at 00:19 +0100, Felipe Erias Morandeira wrote:
> Owen Taylor wrote:
> >
> > I did not say that. I said:
> >
> >  - Adding a task list to the current design does not make sense
> >    *in isolation*.
> >
> >  - We want to do user testing with the current design (including the
> >    message tray) and are unlikely to make any big changes without
> >    reference to that.
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> unless I am mistaken, the Shell aims to structure the user's work-flow
> around activities and tasks. In the Shell, an activity is basically a
> set of windows that are used together so that the user can achieve a
> more or less defined goal; since said goal can change dynamically, the
> user should be able to re-arrange the tasks, spawn new activities, etc.

A lot of people are under this impression. I think it was because there
was some mention of this type of idea in the write-ups from the initial
hackfest, and the idea really struck a chord with some people. They got
excited about it.

Plus, the fact that workspaces are the most prominent thing in the
"Activities" screen, makes people jump to the conclusion that a
workspace is an activity. (We've considered adding text to the new
workspace button to say "New Workspace" to try and help with that.)

But it's not the case. Workspaces are Workspaces. Activities are the
things you are doing with your computer, like the currently running
applications.

If people would try to be careful about the terminology and avoid
calling workspaces activities, I'd appreciate it, because otherwise,
Jon's head might explode, and we'd really be in trouble getting the
GNOME Shell design work done. (I'm joking! on the other hand, do *not*
call the Activities Overview the "overlay".)

> For me, the activity-task hierarchy is the basis of the conceptual model
> of the Shell.
> 
> The way I see it, a good method to enforce this model would be to reduce
> and focus the need to use the Activities view, which should only be used
> for actually creating and managing activities and not as the primary
> method for switching between tasks within the same activity. If you
> already have the current activity set up with all that you need to carry
> out a specific piece of work laid in the current workspace, having to go
> back to the Activities view will demand a higher mental load than if you
> were able to manage your windows without leaving the current workspace.
> It's all a matter of allowing the user to focus on what she is doing:
> "if you are working in activity A, we will not force you to remember
> activities B, C and D unless you choose to".

I think you are right that if we were designing about groups of
activities like this, then we'd want to design things differently. But
since we're not designing around groups of activities, the Activities
Overview is meant to be the place you manage your activities:

 - start applications
 - find documents
 - switch between windows

Etc. We're still working on exactly how to allow the user to focus
better on the stuff within one workspace, see the current mockups and
the work that Maxim has done in implementing them in 
https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=593844 (I referenced that
earlier in this thread.)

- Owen