Re: [Usability] Reasoning behind default panel setup?

[David Tenser <djst mozilla gmail com>]

On 01/11/06 00:11 Steve Frécinaux wrote:
> David Tenser wrote:
> 
>> 1. Icons are very small on a 24px panel.
>>
>> Many icons, especially application icons, generally look better when
>> displayed in a larger size. The current layout, using two 24px panels,
>> makes everything on the panels very small. This also has the drawback of
>> making icons harder to target.
> 
> 
> On the other hand, and especially on a small resolution, you can have
> more small icons than big ones. You won't be able to put 10 32px icons
> between the menu and the notification area, especially if you remove one
> out of the two panels.

The default panels don't have ten icons.

> Besides this, I often see KDE users using a special applet to put two
> ranges of icons in their kicker. This mean they have two (shorter) ranks
> of 16px icons (this allow them to have a larger window list). So I doubt
> "bigger and more beautiful" icons make the point here.

KDE's panel is huge. Try adjusting your gnome panel to 32px, it's not even comparable.

>> 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.
> 
> As Kalle says, I'm not sure the time/calendar applet is a waste of
> space, I click on it regularly to see the datum or for various
> date-related reasons.

Granted, the time/calendar applet is not a waste of space, but it alone is not something justifying the need for a third corner for the panels.

> 
>> * Easier to spot, recognize, and click on icons. Also, better looking
>> icons.
> 
> 
> But worse looking everything else. I don't think you'll increase the
> size of the icons from the notification area for some practical reason
> (as KDE has a big panel but small notification icons). I don't think
> you'll increase the font size of the menu or the clock. So you'll end up
> increasing the size of the whole panel to have cleaner icons, that's
> good, but you'll have a lot of ugly margins everywhere. How many icons
> are there by default ? 3 ?

Yes, if exactly 32 was chosen (which was just a humble suggestion), it would end up with 4 pixels of vertical margin on that panel. Some icons in the notification area, such as the network-manager and the gnome-power-manager, use icons that don't completely fit into the current 24px upper panel. 

>> * More vertical space available for applications.
> 
> But less horizontal space. Add the width of the menu, the volume
> control, the clock, the network applet(s), a few icons and the
> notification area, and that won't let you much space for the window
> list. That is even worse for small res.

Windows XP manages to do just that. For 800x600 screens, the default setup looks a bit crowded, but what do you expect? It's still a usable panel, and you are free to remove some of the icons that you don't need. Most screens (in fact, over 90% of them) are 1024x768 or larger, so for the vast majority of our users, it wouldn't look crowded at all.

> Given that you assume that the average user does not use the virtual
> desktops, it probably means that the average user has lots of windows on
> his main desktop, right ? So you need a lot of horizontal space to
> display all those window buttons. The window list does not support
> multiple row yet, afaik, despite it could be fixed. But it would be more
> difficult to click on the second row because it wouldn't touch the
> border of the screen.

It already supports multiple rows, but it's nothing I would recommend for the default panel size. As you say, it makes the upper row harder to click.

> I agree that vertical space is critical on widescreen, but horizontal
> space is critical too for small screens, perhaps even more than vertical
> space. You have to make a trade-off, therefore.

Yes, but I'm not suggesting we add a vertical panel by default. The tradeoff should be less things on the panels by default, not less vertical space.

>> * Familiar environment for ex-Windows users (let's not forget them --
>> there are a lot of them), and even KDE users.
> 
> 
> And those users are always looking after solutions because of the waste
> of horizontal space. Just look at the multirow-launchers applet from
> KDE, or the button of the windows quick bar to see hidden icons. Just
> look at the way windows "groups windows", and so on.

See above.

> Indeed, I know two friends of mine who are using KDE, and adopted the
> gnome-style panels, because they found it more practical and less
> space-wasting.

I'm not surprised, considering how large the KDE panel is. I'd do the same if I were using KDE.

>> * Less clutter and confusion, by removing some of the default applets.
> 
> 
> There is not so much applets in the base config imho.

Exactly. So let's join them. :)

>> * It would not include the workspace switcher. While multiple desktops
>> is a very useful feature, it's not something "normal" users ever use.
> 
> 
> Perhaps you should educate the users instead of hiding the
> functionnalities they don't use. Users are not used to multiple desktop
> before switching to linux since it does not exist on windows or macos.
> Anyway they are not used to every Gnome specifities at all at that time.

There are lots of cool stuff in Gnome not available in Windows/Mac to educate users about. Most of it is hidden by default, such as the useful keyboard combinatins to move/resize windows, shade windows, etc. I'm not saying workspaces are useless, but it's the first thing that should be taken out if we only have one panel by default.

> 
>> * It would not look crowded just because two panels are merged into one.
>> The date/time applet only displays the time by default now, making the
>> current top panel even more empty. That and the workspace switcher sums
>> up to a lot of horizontal pixels saved.
> 
> 
> If you want to keep the gnome menu, you'll end up with about 400 pixels
> for the window list.

I personally would spend time on improving the main menu (the foot icon) to include more stuff at base level. Ideally, two columns where places were not hidden under a submenu. The idea of separating Applications, Places, and System is good, but it doesn't have to be three separate root-level menus on the panel.

> 
>> I'd be happy to do a simple mockup of how the proposal would look like
>> if anyone is interested. Thanks for reading this far and hopefully I
>> have been clear enough about the suggestions.
> 
> 
> I'd be really happy to see your mockup, and especially if you could
> address the issues about the small width of my screen.

I'll do it tomorrow then.

> 
> So, to do it short, I think that making the panel(s) bigger is not a
> good idea (unless you have a panel with only icons). I also don't know
> if it is really possible to keep an usable window list if you put
> everything on one panel.

I believe it is, but of course, using a 800x600 resolution is pushing it, as it is on Windows XP and any other PC environment as well.

> 
> Perhaps there should be some "template" layout, either you choose the
> widescreen layout, or the normal screen layout, on the first start.
> Anyway I don't think it's a good idea.

I agree, that's just confusing and "too much".

> 
> By the way, did you consider the idea of using a vertical panel ?

Yes, I even mentioned it in the previous post. But as you say yourself, horizontal space is something you generally don't want to waste on panels (except me personally because I have a 1680x1050 widescreen lcd :) ).

Apologizes if my posts appeared multiple times. Thunderbird seems to have a problem with the mail I'm sending to this mailing list. Resorting to gmail.com webmail reply this time.

-- 
David Tenser