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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: [RFC] Icon control page, updated
From:       Michael Pye <mp () fuckmicrosoft ! com>
Date:       2002-08-25 16:41:35
[Download RAW message or body]

Firstly, I would like to point out that the proposal released with the subject 
line above has been superceded three times. I would invite you to look at a 
more recent version. I won't waste list bandwidth with an attachment, if you 
do not have the appropriate messages I would be pleased to send you the 
latest revision personally.

On Sunday 25 August 2002 4:38 pm, you wrote:
> Personally I think that this new proposal is much worse than the current
> implementation (which was created by me and was improved by Waldo Bastian) 
> and I see no real advantages. I rather see lots of disadvantages.

Fair enough. I only want to improve, but others on the list did support 
advantages of the proposed design. One very simple improvement is that even 
in CVS, the Add Theme button brings up a completely redundant line edit when 
paths can be typed directly into a file requester in exactly the same way if 
prefered. While this isn't immediately apparent from the .ui, it was clearly 
mentioed in the accompanying commentry.

> Most users who want to change something about the icons want to change the
> Icontheme as the icon size is something which is set automatically according 
> to the display resolution. The remaining few < 5% have to choose the second 
> tab where the advanced features can be seen. 
> 
> On your solution these quite advanced features like "animated icons" and
> "effects" are plainly visible and serve only for irritation for 95% of the
> users.

Personally, I don't understand this idea. As the proposal combines both tabs 
of the original in a more effective use of space it gives added convenience 
to those who do want access to all the options. As the proposal does not 
require more screen estate and the "regular" and "advanced" options are 
seperated by their group boxes, so I fail to see how users will be irritated 
by their existance.

Perhaps if this were part of a common application or a component of the 
desktop unneccessary options would be an irritation, after all the space can 
be put to better use. However, this is a configuration screen, accessed only 
to make alterations to the system. As with any configuration system, almost 
all users will find some parts irrelevant to them, but splitting so few 
options across two tabs does not allow a clear overview of what is available.

> Also your solution lacks the "Comments".

If you mean the theme descriptions, they can of course be added, but those 
descriptions I have seen distributed with icon sets and with the kdeartwork 
package tend towards redundancy, reading as though they were written only 
because the presence of a description field demanded it. The inclusion of an 
author's field covers the only semi-construction use I have seen for the 
description.

> In addition your layout
> prevents that we will be able to add a Screenshot Preview instead of the
> IconPreview for Iconthemes (which makes sense if you only change a few icons 
> or just icons in certain icon groups).

Fair point, and one I hadn't considered. But I must wonder how useful a full 
screenshot preview would be. After all, the most you can hope to accomodate 
in kcontrol would be about 300px wide. That brings the 32x32 icons of a 
(slightly smaller than standard) 1024x768 display down to about 9x9 pixels, 
or a mere smudge of colour. A much more useful tool if you want to see how 
your theme will look is the "Apply" button, after all, you can always revert 
to the old settings.

> Concerning the Effects part I guess that you simply didn't get what you can 
> do with effects (it's not just there for "highlightning"). But of course I 
> can't say that for sure as the .ui-file lacks the Advanced Highlight 
> settings (way too long name anyways - the word "settings" is completely 
> redundant). 

No, I don't get what they are for. At least not other than to denote the icon 
under the pointer and an icon which won't respond. I don't understand what 
use applying an effect to the normal icons. But I would be greatful if you or 
anyone else could point out my oversight.

As for the word "settings", I admit that the button title could be more 
succinctly worded, however in its current form the word settings is far from 
redundant. "Icon Highlight" makes no sense, though it has just occured to me 
that "Icon Highlighting" may be an good alternative to the original.

The .ui for the effects dialogue was created seperately and I have posted it 
to the list where it also underwent peer review and revision.

My proposals are only made in an effort to bring about improvement. There is 
always room for improvement. :)
-- 
MP
_______________________________________________________________
Linux gremlin 2.4.19-gentoo-r7 i686 AuthenticAMD
  5:02pm  up  2:12,  1 user,  load average: 0.10, 0.05, 0.01
_______________________________________________
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]