Re: [Usability] Better look Re: (no subject)

[Josue Farde <josuefrade sapo pt>]

My friend's dont forget that any desktop environment needs a clear look
as default 2 be accepted, majoraty of people wont know how 2 get into
gnome-look or sites like that, especially if they r only in english. 

So right from the begining as default gnome needs a better look, from
point 1 (instalation) not just in menus and labels but in icons as well.
It is urgent to put gnome shining an clear.
To be accepted it needs to b pleasent has default.

Besides i was looking through themes in gnome-look.org and in
art-gnome.org and none of them was pleasant enought to me or any of the
people i asked, none of them was consistent, and defenitly none of them
had comunication design in consideration. And they were not complete,
some icons just remained the same after the change makeing it just look
bad.

Josue




On Tue, 2005-12-13 at 22:48 -0200, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote:
> On 13 Dec, 2005, at 8:41 PM, GSR - FR wrote:
> >
> > Hi, jnoreiko yahoo com (2005-12-13 at 1104.40 +0000):
> > ...
> >> To be usable, controls do need to be clear, simple to understand, and  
> >> easy to read. I think that the current default on my distro
> >> (Ubuntu's 'Human' theme) and the GNOME default 'Clearlooks' both do  
> >> this very well.
> 
> Both Human and Clearlooks, though, like Luna, Platinum, and Windows 3.x  
> before them, are very cartoonish. They look like pen drawings of  
> controls, rather than actual controls.
> 
> Sadly, from looking briefly through the gtk2 themes on art.gnome.org,  
> they all either have that pixelly cartoon appearance, or they have a  
> light-on-dark color scheme (great for an alternative theme, poor for a  
> default), or they have sunken checkboxes and radiobuttons (which looks  
> wrong when embedded in listboxes, which is why Windows 98 and 2000  
> often used an inconsistent flat style for checkboxes and radiobuttons  
> inside listboxes), or they're ripoffs of Aqua.
> 
> > ...
> > My take is that sometimes there would be less confusion if things were
> > shown in a more pleasing way. And yes, I know the HIG puts examples to
> > demostrate how the proposed style is better (vs a crappy old one, no
> > idea if real or faked for the occassion, but so bad that anything has
> > to look better). It also covers nice ways to put text in dialogs and
> > so on. That does not mean it could not be changed to make it better.
> > The unbalance to the left side and the expansion of things to edges
> > always looked strange to me in dialogs, sometimes even disturbing.
> > ...
> 
> Yes, currently the HIG says: "Left-align components and labels, unless  
> all the labels in a group have very different lengths. If they do,  
> right-align the labels instead, to ensure that no controls end up too  
> far away from their corresponding labels."
> <http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/design-text- 
> labels.html#layout-label-position>
> <http://developer.gnome.org/projects/gup/hig/2.0/design- 
> window.html#improved-layout-figure>
> 
> This encourages internal inconsistency, leftward imbalance, and columns  
> of colons that almost line up but not quite. It's also an impractical  
> guideline to follow, since you can't reasonably know how different the  
> label lengths are going to be in every language your software is  
> translated into, and translators can't specify the alignment  
> themselves.
> 
> Calum, can this be changed? I'd suggest: "When a group of controls is  
> arranged vertically, line up the left edges of the controls (or of the  
> first control in each horizontal subgroup), and right-align labels that  
> are placed to the left of the controls."
>