Re: [Usability] Reasoning behind default panel setup?

[Kalle Vahlman <kalle vahlman gmail com>]

On 1/10/06, David Tenser <djst mozilla gmail com> wrote:
> The reason why I'm posting about all this here is because I was
> recommended to do so by gnome-panel developer Vincent Untz. I see three
> general problems with the current default panel layout:
>
> 1. Icons are very small on a 24px panel.

Although I use 800x600 a lot (which is even more space-concerned than
what I percieve as "normal" resolution), I'd have to second bigger
icons. 8 pixels allocated from application space to prettier icons is
well worth it (and makes bigger targets too).

> Alan Horkan and Evandro mentioned Fitt's law as one of the reasons for
> using two panels. While I agree that the corners are important to
> utilize, Gnome actually only makes use of two of them. The other two are
> wasted by the time/date applet and the trash can.

Wait a moment, why would easy access be wasted with the clock applet?
Trash might not be accessed as frequently, but bringing up the
calendar is something I do reguralry.

That said, the default layout has the window switcher (the one I love
at is place) in the corner instead of the date applet...?
(according to the image at federicos blog
http://primates.ximian.com/~federico/news-2006-01.html#04
and my own experiences at least)

> My proposal, and the original reason why I created this thread, is to
> use one single panel instead of two separate. This panel would be of a
> slightly larger size. I would suggest 32px, which I've found is enough
> to make the icons easy to recognize (much easier than 24px) and still
> 16px smaller in height than the current 2*24px panels. The benefits for
> this would be:
>
> * Easier to spot, recognize, and click on icons. Also, better looking icons.

Agree.

> * More vertical space available for applications.

My reasons to not have the other panel revolve around other things
than the vertical space, but it never hurts ;)

> * Familiar environment for ex-Windows users (let's not forget them --
> there are a lot of them), and even KDE users.

Disagree, I even moved the windows panel to the top on windows. The
menus dropping down always is so much nicer than having two types of
popping menus (application down, system up). And I'm an "ex-Windows
user" so you can't use the "you are set in your unixy ways" argument
:)

> * Less clutter and confusion, by removing some of the default applets.

If you look at the screenshot in the url above, it doesn't look like
it has much in it to begin with...

> * It would not include the workspace switcher. While multiple desktops
> is a very useful feature, it's not something "normal" users ever use.

Strongly agree! Although at least my wife got the idea pretty fast, it
offers little benefits and possible confusion over just using the
taskbar (which hides and shows applications as do the virtual
desktops). "Normal" users are better off without it.

(I don't use virtual desktops nor the taskbar, just the window list
and most of the time I'm just fine with it)

/me parades around with "we don't want the workspace switcher (by
default)" banner

--
Kalle Vahlman, zuh iki fi
Powered by http://movial.fi
Interesting stuff at http://syslog.movial.fi