Re: System Settings Overview Design

[Allan Day <allanpday gmail com>]

On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:31 PM, Allan Day <allanpday gmail com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 3:23 PM, Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 2011-10-24 at 12:57 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> ...
>>> I've also heard it discussed that we're not going to show some
>>> hardware panels if they're not needed, such as the graphics tablet
>>> panel. Can I ask what the plan is there?
>>
>> The plan would be to hide hardware based panels where the hardware isn't
>> readily available. For example, we would hide the Wacom panel if no
>> Wacom tablets were plugged in and none were configured via Bluetooth.
>>
>> We would still show those hidden panels in the search results, as a way
>> of discovering the settings, if needed.
> ...
>
> Thanks for the info. According to my calculations [1], you might end
> up with anywhere between 7 and 13 panels in the hardware section,
> then. Is that right?
>
> The reason I ask is that that kind of variation is difficult to have
> in a fixed grid and still look nice.

It's the dynamic content in combination with grouping that's the real
killer for the layout. I've been thinking about this, and I've started
to wonder whether the groups are really that helpful. I know I don't
find them very useful, and I'd be surprised if other people do. They
can also be misleading.

I've done a mockup for a group-less settings overview [1], and it
seems like a big improvement. The regular layout seems to help with
spatial memory, and the larger icons make identification much easier.
It also looks nicer.

It's worth noting that though grouping is used in some implementations
(including OS X) it isn't universal. WebOS doesn't use it. Neither did
GNOME Back in the Day [2].

Allan

[1] https://github.com/gnome-design-team/gnome-mockups/raw/master/system-settings/overview/no-groups.png

[2] http://www.guidebookgallery.org/screenshots/gnome220redhat9
--
IRC:  aday on irc.gnome.org
Blog: http://afaikblog.wordpress.com/