Startup feedback Was: Re: A strange request

["Karl O . Pinc" <kop meme com>]

On 2001.07.21 19:50 Håkan Waara wrote:
> Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > <quote who="Karl O . Pinc">
> > 
> >>I think gnome should try to win top billing in The Interface Hall of
> Shame,
> >>"http://www.iarchitect.com/mshame.htm";.  
> >>
> > 
> > All I can think is, "Sweet baby Jesus!"
> 
> There are more important usability issues to deal with regarding GNOME 
> already. Let's focus on that, and not some eye-candy, 
> would-be-cool-to-have feature.

I'll not argue, there is only so much effort to go around.

I wrote:
> (On launch icon splits and one detaches
> from panel and explodes, stops exploding when the application has fully
> initialized and is ready for user input.  How's that for feedback?  By
> mainpulating the explosion one could shutdown a process that hangs on
> initialization.)

I do think that there's a serious interface issue with Linux on a slow box
that the expoding icons solve, that being letting the user know that an app
is busy starting up.  Absent feedback, the user tries to start the app
again, further slowing the box.  Then they're confused when they
(eventually) get multiple instances of the same application.  Changing the
cursor (aka M$) is not a good idea because, especally when running on a
slow box, the user might want to get various apps started, especially after
first logging in.  There should be an indicator for each process starting,
but there's only one cursor.  Of course, the icon needn't explode, though
it should go away once the process has started and the user can see it's
there.  There could just be an icon placed in a teeny window for each
starting process.  The icon would be the icon for the starting application
and could have a image of a ghost layed over it or something.  Maybe a
teeny window is not a good idea.  Maybe creating a window is too resource
intensive -- it's important the "starting" indicator appear as quickly as
possible.  But it does have the advantage of having a standard interface --
clicking the window's close box would not only close the teeny window, but
also, as the teeny window is a stand-in for the starting application, would
kill the starting application.

It's only a big issue on a slow box, but an old/slow box can actually
remain useful when running Linux 'cause tight resources won't crash it.  I
used a 33MHz 486 for years.  It took 10 to 15 minutes to boot and get the
apps going, but was adequate once running.  (I never seemed to have the
time to shift off the box, but I didn't have to.)   We shouldn't ignore the
slow boxes, a person/organization's first linux install is likely to be on
the "leftovers".   And anybody who chooses free software because of the
cost is not likely to have the latest and greatest hardware.  (Come to
think of it, anybody who's waited through starting StarOffice 5.2 on any
kind of box could appreciate startup feedback.)

I'll shut up now 'cause I'm only kibitzing on the list and not coding. 
Just scattering seeds.

Thanks for listening.

Karl <kop meme com>