[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
List: kde-usability
Subject: Single vs Multi Window KControl
From: Frans Englich <frans.englich () telia ! com>
Date: 2004-07-31 23:17:11
Message-ID: 200407312317.11564.frans.englich () telia ! com
[Download RAW message or body]
Hello everyone,
Whether KControl should be Single Window(SW) or Multi window(MW) is crucial to
how our future KControl will look like. Currently, I think a multi window
approach is best. Here's why:
* If we go for SW by having the navigation mechanism positioned outside the
module viewing area(as our current kcontrol) it is hard to make KControl live
up to the 800x600 requirement[1] and also have a good navigation mechanism.
An MW approach, as the two currently proposed, easily lives up to that KDE UI
Guidelines paragraph.
* If we go for SW by fully hiding the navigation layout(which will be
necessary if an effective navigation such as large icons, is to be used while
being usable on 800x600) we take a major hit in consistency. This and the
next paragraph is the major reasons to why I prefer SW. For the same reason
we disables menu entries instead of hiding them, we should keep the
navigation as static as possible:
* It makes learning easier
* It makes navigation easier since time is not spent on relocation
* It provides a feeling of solidness and comfortness; the navigation is
stable, looks the same, and is a "reference spot" the user always know. It
never suddenly disappears, and will always be visible behind the
configuration dialog since they are smaller than the main window.
* MW means faster navigation since the navigation mechanism is not hidden(not
faster as in how the user physically interacts, but the need of scanning the
interface).
Having the content of categories as an icon list in the configuration
dialog[2] has the same drawback. The category cannot be viewed without
opening a dialog and that makes Trial&Rrror and navigation in general much
slower. However, the positive side is the "main" navigation then can be made
simpler, but I think the cost is too high. I solved it by adding an
additional icon view[3] -- the window is still small and the layout is
simple.
* Xandros' CTO explicitly states in an interview they prefer MW in
KControl[2]. I don't know why they prefer it, but that is a vote for MW from
a major linux distributor which targets regular users.
* Someone stated MW is confusing for new users. Having a MW KControl is just
as confusing as the desktop in general -- the window paradigm is fundamental.
We have dialogs, messages boxes, wizards and so forth ad infinitum -- if
that's ok, it must be alright with it in KControl too. It's like ordinary
configuration dialogs, not worse. Remember, the configuration dialogs are,
just as the ordinary ones, smaller than the main window, and always above the
main window -- the former gives a sense of control, and the latter ensures
they don't "dissapear" behind the main window.
In other words, I prefer MW because SW hinders efficient navigation, not
because it allows /multiple/ configuration dialogs -- as someone pointed out
that is used by power users, and I would like to emphasize that aspect should
not rule our decision.
Could someone who preferrably is pro SW, correct/extend this email?
Frans
Footnotes
---------
1.
http://developer.kde.org/documentation/standards/kde/style/basics/windows.html#win_size
2.
Icon list on configuration dialog:
http://www.csh.rit.edu/~benjamin/kcontrol4/screenshots/desktop.png
3.
kdenonbeta/kcontrol4(icon size needs adjustment):
http://www.kde-look.org/content/files/14848-kcontrol4.png
4.
Interview with Xandros CTO:
http://dot.kde.org/1083922704/
_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]
Configure |
About |
News |
Add a list |
Sponsored by KoreLogic