[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    RE: Configure Desktop Background
From:       "Poletti, Don" <Don.Poletti () comverse ! com>
Date:       2002-06-03 20:11:59
[Download RAW message or body]

I took Aaron's layout and added options for patterns
and pixmap cache. I didn't use a group box for the 
two pixmap widgets this looks a little funny to me
but emphasizes that these are not on a per desktop basis.

I also shrunk the add wallpaper button. I tried to expand
the list to the button but was unable to get it to size correctly.
It either wanted to be too small or too large, So I left it the
way it was although it should go down to the button.



>-----Original Message-----
>From: Aaron J. Seigo [mailto:aseigo@olympusproject.org]
>Sent: Sunday, May 19, 2002 6:07 PM
>To: kde-usability@mail.kde.org
>Subject: Re: Configure Desktop Background
>
>
>On May 19, 2002 02:48 pm, John Firebaugh wrote:
>> Not necessarily. To the user, it isn't obvious what options 
>are mutually
>> exclusive or not. I think separate group boxes only confuses 
>the matter.
>
>the challenge is that not only can they be blended, but 
>wallpapers have many 
>specific needs that colors don't. the fact that there is so 
>much widget 
>duplication ought to be a hint.
>
>> The duplicated widgets are why I suggest the drop down menu with card
>> layout.
>
>you may as well use tabs in that case.
>
>> > i do like the "Background for Desktop %1" label =)
>>
>> Of course, more properly it would be "Background for %1", 
>where %1 could be
>> "all Desktops" or "Desktop %2". :)
>
>ack
>
>> > more on wallpapers: perhaps a list box that lists all the available
>> > wallpapers. that way "multiple wallpapers" wouldn't 
>require a secondary
>> > dialog to set up, which is horrible UI design.
>>
>> Yeah, perhaps. I don't think that secondary dialogs for less 
>common or more
>> complex options are automatically horrible UI design though.
>
>it is when there is no reason to have secondary dialogs.
>
>> > the way you would do this in designer is to do each set of 
>widgets as its
>> > own .ui ... anyways, hiding widgets should be avoided at 
>all costs since
>> > it removes the possibilty of muscle-memory learning ...
>>
>> Muscle memory is important only for frequent, repetitive 
>tasks. At least
>> for me, configuring the desktop background doesn't fall into 
>this category!
>
>while ture that it has less effect in uncommonly used tasks, it is not 
>unimportant. static UIs are easier to use, full stop. and some 
>of us change 
>our backgrounds fairly regularly. ;-)
>
>> In fact, reducing the number of widgets available (i.e. 
>complexity) is one
>> of the best things you can do for better UI.
>
>this is one of my primary concerns with all the duplicated widgets.
>
>> > note that in that dialog the pixmap cache stuff is missing 
>as well...
>>
>> That's intentional as well.
>
>seeing as i deleted them from the UI after chatting w/SadEagle 
>about it, i'll 
>confirm that it was indeed intentional  ;-)
>
>i've attached yet another revision.. note the lack of the 
>"Reverse" checkbox 
>for wallpaper blending and instead the addition of (Reverse) 
>entries in the 
>"Blend with background:" drop down menu.
>
>i removed the random vs in order option for multiple wallpapers.
>
>the wallpapers are now shown in a list. picture them with 
>checkboxes next to 
>them, which will allow for multiple selection. there is also 
>space for some 
>copyright info as per tackat's request.
>
>the dialog is surprisingly short. not perfect, but short ;-) 
>widget count: 14.
>
>(btw: i think the multiple versions of UIs at this stage of 
>design is really, 
>really great for encouraging new thought)
>
>-- 
>Aaron J. Seigo
>



["back-pat.ui" (application/octet-stream)]
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]