Re: [Usability] Request for UI freeze break (Re: Icons in panel menu bar)

[Kirk Bridger <kbridger shaw ca>]

From a usability standpoint, MPT's approach breaks from having visual 
consistency.  Sure it follows the guidelines of only dynamic objects 
having icons, but it breaks visual consistency.

So either move the non-dynamic items under a dynamic object so you can 
have visual consistency (reorganize the info to better suit the eye) or 
change the guideline for special cases.

I vote for leaving the icons in.  There is already an indicator to 
visually identify dynamic objects (the little arrow to the right of the 
text I believe) - there's no need to differentiate them via inclusion of 
an icon.  Lacking an icon also does not naturally map to user 
expectations.  How does not having an icon indicate anything to anyone, 
in particular that it is not a "dynamic object"?  I don't get the 
mapping at least.


Kirk




Andreas Nilsson wrote:
> On 08/31/2009 10:41 AM, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Le mercredi 26 août 2009, à 17:54 +0200, Frederic Crozat a écrit :
> >   
> > > Le vendredi 31 juillet 2009 à 22:02 +0200, Vincent Untz a écrit :
> > >     
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > When the panel was changed to kept some icons when the menu icons are
> > > > hidden, all icons in the panel menu bar were kept. A new change 
> > > > just got
> > > > committed to only keep icons for application menu items, place menu
> > > > items and preference menu items. Or if you prefer, icons for 
> > > > categories,
> > > > "Connect to server", "Search files", "Recent documents", "Help", 
> > > > "About
> > > > GNOME", "Lock", "Log out", "Shut down" were removed.
> > > >
> > > > I'm not convinced by this change: some part probably makes sense, but
> > > > something "feels" wrong to me. Maybe it's because I expect the panel
> > > > menu bar to be a bit different.
> > > >
> > > > It could also be because by default, you get three menus 
> > > > (Applications /
> > > > Places / System), and only Places has some icons (and quite a few of
> > > > them) while the two others don't if you don't open a submenu. Maybe it
> > > > kind of breaks a visual balance for me...
> > > >
> > > > So, yeah, I'd just like to get feedback to know if it's right or 
> > > > not, if
> > > > it needs to be updated slightly, etc.
> > > >        
> > > Is there any plan to revert this (back to icons on submenus) ? Current
> > > situation is really inconsistent and the mix between no icons and icons
> > > is a nightmare, mainly in Applications menu.
> > >      
> > The only feedback I got about this is that we should revert the change
> > for categories in the applications menu (and system menu, for the
> > preferences). Some people would also like other icons to come back in
> > the panel menu (and just the panel menus, because it's a special menu).
> >
> > Usability people: can you step up and tell us what is the right thing to
> > do here? At the moment, my decision as maintainer is to put back the
> > icons for categories in the applications menu.
> >    
> Matthew Paul Thomas seems to have been unsubscribed from this list 
> (not on purpose, no idea what happened).
>
> He said this on IRC:
>
> following the guideline of icons for dynamic objects, there should be 
> icons for:
> * application categories
> * applications * Places folders, volumes, and Network
> * items inside the "Recent Documents" submenu
> * items inside the "Preferences" and "Administration" submenus.
>
> and there should _not_ be icons for:
> * "Connect to Server..."
> * "Search for Files..."
> * the "Recent Documents" submenu title
> * any of the top-level items in the "System" menu.
>
>
> Lets hope he's able to resubscribe soon.
> - Andreas
> _______________________________________________
> Usability mailing list
> Usability gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability