Re: System Settings Overview Design

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org>]

On mié, 2011-10-26 at 15:11 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-10-26 at 12:58 +0100, Allan Day wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> The main goal of the separation is personalisation vs. configuration.
> 
> Personal: the only thing you should need to touch
> Hardware: making bits of hardware work (most would "just work", such as
> display output, or offer alternative entry points, such as adding
> bluetooth devices)
> System: system related stuff that isn't hardware related
> 
but does this help users find the stuff they want?