Re: [Usability] Vanilla GNOME defaults

[Kenny Graunke <kenny whitecape org>]

<quote who="Calum Benson">

[snip]
 
> * What will be the default:
> 	- window manager?

Sawfish or Metacity...probably Sawfish.

> 	- window frame style?

Something like:

http://www.themes.org/themes/253/

Assuming we do go with sawfish, we definately need something that works
better than most existing themes.

Pros:
1. The titlebar actually resizes to fit the text, rather than cutting it off
   with large fonts and wasting space with small fonts.
   [Virtually no other sawfish themes do this, if any.]
2. Resize handles and the maximize button are not shown for non-resizable
   windows.
   [I've never seen another sawfish theme that does this.]
3. It has dots on the titlebar, which provide a visual "draggable in all
   directions" affordance, as well as making it more accessible by color blind
   people - any suggestions to emulate MS Windows will promptly be rejected
   on that basis alone.
   [Common, Crux is OK here, not in MS Windows style]
4. The entire frame recolors; even the grey parts. This means it works well
   with either light or dark themes.
   [Most themes don't recolor at all; Crux recolors only the highlight
    color, making it look stupid with dark themes.]
5. The titlebar text and button foregrounds recolor to be black or white to
   contrast with the titlebar color.
   [Crux doesn't do this, so using a dark highlight color makes the buttons
    harder to read, and using a very light/white color for the highlight
    makes the text unreadable.]
6. The window icon becomes greyscale and the frame gets a flattened appearance
   for unfocused windows, making it easy to tell which is focused.
7. Configurable button order themes.
   [Basically the same as Crux, although the different button orders for
    transient windows have been removed, as it already removes the maximize
    button when it doesn't work. Making general assumptions about transients
    is a bad idea, as the category of "transient" windows is very general...]
8. Changes the button icon on the maximize button based on whether it
   maximizes or unmaximizes.
9. It's quite popular on themes.org, and some people who use Linux in their
   business have praised it saying that it's clean, usable, and
   professional. (OK, lame Pro. I know. Ignore this one. ;)

Cons:
1. It might be a bit slow...although it's noticably a _ton_ faster than it
   was when it was first developed, and it seems OK to me...
2. Some people don't think it looks as good as Crux (I'm developing a
   Crux-like theme in my spare time, but I might not finish it, and it's
   definately going to be a lot more complicated and slower...)

Some other things:

Resizing the entire frame based on the user's font (ems) would be a good
thing - people using huge fonts probably need other things to be larger as
well. This would probably take a few hours of hacking (if only to get the
corner bevels done properly), nothing major.

It needs a sane button order. Julian and I recommend:
[min][max] :::: (icon) Title Text :::: [close]
This assures that:
1. The user won't overshoot the maximize button and hit close instead, like
   under Windows (yes, I have done this personally).
2. Close is fairly alone; most windows won't have menu items on the far
   right, so it just has empty menubar space there. Were it on the left, the
   user could overshoot File (although I'm not sure how likely that'd be).
3. Other than being shifted to the left, [min] and [max] are in the same
   order as under MS Windows, in case that is important to you.
4. Removing the maximize button doesn't move any of the other buttons,
   letting the user go to a consistent place to access these functions.
   If you remove the minimize button, chances are you'll already have
   removed the maximize button. Close can be removed without affecting
   anything. (Although presently only the maximize button is removed...)

We had some arguments over whether
[close] ::: (i) Title Text [min][max]
or
[close] ::: (i) Title Text [max][min]
were best - the argument for the second being that removing [max] in the first
one would move [min] over, the one for the former being that [max] seems
like an operation that goes "up and to the right", while [min] is "down and
left". The [min][max] :::: (icon) Title Text [close] order avoids these, and
at some point we really need to just agree on one, so I'm proposing that.

At any rate, that's a trivial change that can always be done at the last
minute, so long as it's done...

[snip]
 
> Cheeri,
> Calum.

[more snip]

Ciao,
--Kenny

-- 
Windows has its place. Not in my place, but it does have a place.
- Thomas Cherryhomes