Re: [Usability] Screensaver and idle time
- From: William Jon McCann <mccann jhu edu>
- To: Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>
- Cc: Gnome usability <usability gnome org>
- Subject: Re: [Usability] Screensaver and idle time
- Date: Wed, 01 Mar 2006 12:17:34 -0500
Joachim Noreiko wrote:
This caused us a number of headaches in the UI review,
and the more I think about it, the more illogical it
seems, for a number of reasons.
My recollection was that the difficulty in the review was related to:
1. This feature having a cross-module scope
2. The specific language to use for the label text (session and idle)
By cross module scope I mean that this is one example of a different
kind of problem then we may be used to. As the desktop becomes more
integrated it will become increasingly difficult to maintain preference
panels that are per-application. For example, gnome-screensaver and
gnome-power-manager are two distinct modules with fairly well defined
roles at this point but the policy/preferences UI needs to become more
integrated. Exactly how this integration will occur I don't know.
Firstly, we couldn't work out a good way to label the
controls. That should be a red flag to begin with.
The order that springs to mind is:
[*] Use the screensaver
- start it after [-------] minutes
- lock the screen
That's the way the user conceptualizes it: do I want
the saver or not? Supposing I do, how do I want it?
The current way is quite simply backwards, and the
logical way is not possible because of what the
controls actually do.
Second, I am currently writing the docs for this.
What do I say about this slider?
"Use the slider to set the screensaver delay time. The
screensaver will" ... um, no, it won't!
"Use the slider to set the session idle time"...
meaningless jargon that users don't understand.
"Use the slider to set the computer idle time"... I
don't want my computer to be lazy!
"Use the slider to set the time that your computer
must be unused to count as "... to count as what?
Again, I am depending on jargon.
Right, we haven't come up with a good way to describe this. This is
partly due to the problem I described above in that this function is
scoped wider than just screensaver stuff.
In the UI review we just gave up. We probably should have tried harder
to get this right. Sometimes there just isn't enough time to get it
Perhaps we could have used "desktop" instead of "session" and "inactive"
instead of "idle" to avoid *new* jargon.
Or perhaps if we had this slider in the same dialog as the
gnome-power-manager screen and computer suspend sliders, and we don't
care to advertize a desktop wide idle/away setting we wouldn't have to
make the distinction that it is the baseline idle time at all.
So, do we care to have an integrated desktop-wide idle setting? I think
it is useful. I'd like some other opinions on this though. There are
lots of technical reasons why we'd want this which for the most part are
either presence/communication related or boil down to a contract with
the user that after this time applications should be free to do stuff
that might otherwise piss the user off (eg. run backups, rebuild
databases, etc). But this is a usability list... So why might this be
nice for people to have. Well, there would only be one place that
someone has to set this instead of in a screensaver, in a power-manager,
in a chat client, in ekiga, in a backup client, etc. I think it also
makes the Desktop experience more personal in that it gets closer to
knowing what you think. We already can detect presence by proximity
using bluetooth without using something as crude as a time slider bar.
However, until we can ask the user "Is there anything else I can help
you with for now?" we need to use a slider bar and try to detect the
human activity from input devices. So, that time slider bar has to go
somewhere and it has to be described somehow.
If you can't explain something cleanly and simply,
then there is probably something wrong with it.
Probably more accurate to say there may be something wrong with it.
The user opens the Screensaver prefs to do one thing:
set the screensaver properties. When the screensaver
starts, what it shows, and whether to lock the screen.
We should not be overloading these settings with other
I agree. This is partly due to the name of the menu entry, yes.
Thirdly, there is no logical reason to tie screensaver
activation to session idleness.
The user may want several things to happen when the
computer is unused. I can think of:
- mark IM as away
- show screensaver
- power down monitor
I think we disagree here. I think there is a clear reason for relating
screensaver activation and session/desktop idleness. In fact, that has
always been the case. Just because there may be other things that are
also interested in the session/desktop idleness doesn't mean that it
shouldn't be related to screensaver activation.
The last two have to go together. But why tie the
If I set my monitor to power down after 10 minutes,
and my screensaver to show after 15, then I won't get
to see it. Tough.
No not tough - wrong. Why on earth should we allow settings that are
meaningless? That is super confusing.
But the first two have no predefined order.
For example, suppose I run BOINC as a screensaver. I
want it to start early on, say 2 minutes. But I might
be in front of my PC reading paper documents while
that is happening. I want GAIM to be able to return me
to the desktop if one of my contacts comes online or
messages me, so I don't want GAIM to mark me as idle.
I don't mean to insult you but I hardly think this is normal behavior.
Most people don't sit and watch screensavers. Perhaps it should set the
away message as "I'm really here but I'm watching my screensaver" ;)
There are some other subtle points here regarding the effect of IM
messages and DPMS suspend that I won't get into here. Some more thought
needs to go into how IM and messaging will work on a desktop appliance.
It's obviously too late to do something for 2.14, so
I'll try my best to come up with something for the
documentation for this as it stands.
But please could this be reconsidered?
Almost everything can be reconsidered. As always, I welcome and
appreciate more people being thoughtful about this stuff. And thanks
for working on the docs.
] [Thread Prev