Re: [Usability] Media Controls

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 23:27 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 21:15:34 +0100
> > From: Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>
> > To: Alan Horkan <horkana maths tcd ie>
> > Cc: Tim Steenvoorden <timlists lapis demon nl>, usability gnome org
> > Subject: Re: [Usability] Media Controls
> >
> > On Sat, 2005-10-29 at 20:43 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> > > On Sat, 29 Oct 2005, Tim Steenvoorden wrote:
> > <snip>
> > > > Very neat because they don't use "Open..."- or "New.."-items.
> > > > * Totem uses a firs menu called "Movie" (which is bad, you can also play
> >
> > Why is it bad exactly? Totem is a movie player, and can also play audio
> > files. But it's mainly a movie player.
> 
> Why is it good?  Surely you had some strong idea to justify not using a
> File menu like most applications?
> 
> > > idea and some developers took it as encouragement to get rid of the file
> > > menu entirely.  (I have bug report on the issue I should do some follow up
> >
> > You've already filed this bug nearly a year ago:
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=160274
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > music => just call it "File"). It puts "Eject" and "Play / Pause"
> > > > somewhere mixed between "Open / Location / CD" etc. and the Recent
> > > > Files. "Next" and "Previous" are placed in another menu: "Go" (just like
> > > > HIG says), but: "Previous" should be *before* "Next".
> > >
> > > I'd love for you to file a request against Totem encouraging them to use a
> > > File menu but in all likelyhood the request will be not be accepted but
> > > perhaps it is worth reminding the Totem developers there are people who do
> > > not appreciate this inconsistency.
> >
> > What consistency problem? The Movie menu relates to operations on the
> > movie, the go menu on navigation inside the movie.
> 
> Not a problem from your point of view as the developer of a Movie
> application but as part of Gnome it would be better to use a File menu
> like most other Gnome applications and most other mass market media
> players (Realplayer, Quicktime, Windows Media Player).

The HIG says I'm OK:
"If your application does not operate on documents, name this item for
the type of object it displays. For example, many games should have a
Game instead of a File menu. However, place the Quit menu item last on
this menu nonetheless."

> > <snip>
> > > > * Many apps use a combined "Play / Pause"-item (Totem, SJ) or use a
> > > > toogle-item (Muine). HIG says don't use the same button for play and
> > > > pause.
> > >
> > > Totem has declined to follow the HIG recommendation on including a stop
> > > and (if I recall correctly) also declined to entertain patches which might
> > > implement such an option button the rest followed from there.
> >
> > What's that got to do with what Tim was talking about? And, as it's been
> > discussed many times, the Stop button is unneeded, that's why we don't
> > have one.
> 
> The HIG seemed to think it was a good idea and you disagreed. As the

It says absolutely nowhere in the HIG that I should have a Stop button,
and if the Stop button does absolutely nothing more than what's possible
otherwise, what's the point?

<snip>
> That would be great.  If testing shows this to be a better solution than
> following what was recommended by the HIG then there would be good reason
> to change the guidelines but in the meantime the default media player is
> in conflict with the HIG and I think it is a failure of the HIG if

You seem to be reading a different HIG than I am, because I can't find
that anywhere in the HIG. Read the archives as well, the lack of a Stop
button has already been discussed, and all the problems people were
seeing (like not being able to eject a CD when playing a file from it,
not releasing the sound device, etc.) were fixed. The Stop button is
unneeded, that's why there isn't one.

> developer cannot be convinced to follow the standard first and then extend
> it later after there is evidence to show they really have thought out a
> better answer than whoever wrote the HIG.
> 
> I realise I am being arguementative and it is great when developers try
> out new ideas but I think Gnome would be a lot better if developers
> embraced first and extended later (embrace the HIG, and embrace the
> example of the media players in the mass market).

As I've said a number of times, the HIG is only a guide. You can make
HIG-compliant applications that will be unusable, and some applications
that don't completely comply will be usable.
I'm not trying to make things different just to be different, but all of
them for a good reason.

---
Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>