Re: Planned "Sound Settings" improvements

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Wed, 2011-11-16 at 16:41 +0100, David Henningsson wrote:
> On 10/25/2011 08:40 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-10-25 at 20:00 +0200, David Henningsson wrote:
> > <snip>
> >> Btw, just a quick question so I know the limitations: What are the
> >> maximum size (in pixels) of the sound settings dialog? Are we designing
> >> for 1024x768, 800x600 or even less?
> >
> > https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings#UI_Patterns
> 
> Hi again!
> 
> Apart from working on the PulseAudio side, I've made a new mockup, here:
> 
> http://people.canonical.com/~diwic/sound-settings/sound_settings_mockup_diwic2.png
> 
> Comments about the mockup:
> 
> First remember, I'm not a designer (the previous mockup was not made by 
> me), so please don't laugh about left margins not being pixel aligned 
> and such. Also, out of laziness I started off with a screenshot from my 
> current system, so if there's some Ubuntu theming in there, just ignore 
> that. :-)

Well, disregarding the Ubuntu theme, and such, but could you base it off
the current development version of gnome-control-center, rather than the
GNOME 3.2 version?

The order of the tabs has changed, as have the mute checkboxes.

> The names in the left pane is the actual names we get out of PulseAudio 
> today. I'd probably submit a PA patch to remove some of the "Analog" and 
> "Audio" in the names, as I find them mostly superfluous.
> 
> Fade will be hidden for profiles with less than four channels and 
> Subwoofer will be hidden if there is no LFE channel.

This is already the case. We check with PulseAudio whether Fade and LFE
are available.

> The "Volume Boost" can be debated until we all fall down dead, I left it 
> out for now as I personally don't think +11 dB fits all. I guess there 
> will be some space available if the debate ends up with  implementing it.

You can try adding it later. But I'm not interested in bundling
something I don't want to see along with other changes. Trying to sneak
it in is unlikely to make me very cooperative, to say the least.

> And finally a question:
> 
> I tried hard to fit the pixel margins of 675x490 in the mockup. But may 
> I ask what hardware we're actually targetting here? It seems like most 
> netbooks [1] are either 800x480, in which case 675x490 won't fit, or 
> 1024x600, in which case there should be plenty of more, at least on the 
> width side? Or am I missing something?

As I mentioned in:
http://mail.gnome.org/archives/gnomecc-list/2011-October/msg00018.html
the target size is mentioned in:
https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings#UI_Patterns

"675x530px" though probably below 490px in height to fit on all netbooks
(except the original Asus eeePC, but really).

Cheers