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

List:       kde-usability
Subject:    Re: Idea for KDE 4 - global, smooth zoom feature.
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () kde ! org>
Date:       2005-05-26 20:47:27
Message-ID: 200505261447.37611.aseigo () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 26 May 2005 12:58, Diego Moya (a.k.a. TuringTest) wrote:
> image"). Then why wouldn't you want to use "placement" as one of those
> initial properties?

because it's note necessary to introduce such a concept, and it would break 
down the moment you had a non-spatial search input or a set of output that 
doesn't map well spatially.

> > the biggest mistake so many spatialites make is to head for the file
> > manager when that's the least compelling argument they could hope to
> > make.
>
> Actually I'm not that interested in the file manager. My main concern
> is unifying within a single interface the idea of virtual desktops
> (i.e. separate local working environments) and the management of
> object micro-placement (drag and drop inside the ZUI navigation
> system).

i think you'll find it difficult to do this without also modifying the file 
manager to cooperate.

> The behavior of Firefox incremental search is spatial. A web page is a
> *long, vertical* paper stream. Typing characters *moves* you through
> the page an *stops* at the *first nearby* matching presence of those
> characters.

ah, you're referring to incremental inline searching. i thought you were 
refering to Firefox's little search bar GUI. 

/me mumbles something about incremental search predating Firefox by decades.

> How exactly do you define spatial? Thinking of it, for me it boils
> down to two conditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_navigation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spatial_file_manager

speaking of which, have you read the Humane Interface? i got it when it came 
out and it was the first time i read about Raskin's ZUI concept.

> > > But you can also have a non spatial "find files" Continuous-Filter
> >
> > which doesn't require changing the entire desktop mataphore. "you can fix
> > the problems of the infinite plane the same ways you can fix our current
> > problems"... then why change the current metaphore?
>
> Because the current metaphore has the problem of covering the
> inter-application universal container, the desktop, and it can't be
> properly used.

properly used? what is the definition for "properly used"?

> Maybe a compromise idea between the two designs could be virtual
> desktops with limited-scope zooming, similar to the bigger-than-screen
> viewports of the older window managers?

ug. please no =) i'd rather having a zooming system than that.

> No, it's broken
> 1) because of clutter - everything goes into those same 1024x768 pixels.

same with zooming. it just lets you adjust the scale of those pixels. in fact, 
in my experience with playing with the demos i find myself having to zoom in 
and out a lot.

> And 2) it also has a steeper learning curve than single unified spaces
> (because different containers -desktop, panels, windows, dialogs-
> behave in different ways).

at best you'll get rid of the difference between desktop and windows. you 
won't get a single coherent system, however.

think of image editting. the image needs to zoom separate from the tools. 
which means the tools need to remain a certain distinct size no matter what 
level you zoom to until you leave "image editting". and now we have modes 
again, and items that don't behave like others. either that or content 
creators who will pause, laugh and go use something else.

> You can solve the first problem with virtual desktops, but then the
> second one gets worse. A ZUI should solve both (but it's true that we

this is where we disagree =)

> Ok, I think now I understand your point better: "nearby" is not only
> for space and time: it can be defined over any relation, and it will
> need to be done on-demand.

... and over time

> > i have no problems with using spatial mappings where useful (e.g.
> > calendars), i do have a problem with making it the central metaphore
> > since it doesn't map consistently well.
>
> Neither do windows, and they're the central metaphore now

sure. and i don't believe in knocking over the status quo to replace it with 
another flawed metaphore. people have poured a lot of themselves into 
learning and becoming comfortable with the status quo. if we change it, it 
had damn well better be a huge improvement.

> Also (before calling me names ;-) note that I never said "all tools
> should be spatial", just "the same things that are spatial now (i.e.
> the windows and the desktop) should be replaced with a better spatial
> interface (the ZUI)". 

technically, our windows aren't spatial. they take up space, but that's not 
really the same thing =)

> It's a matter of changing the universal container, nothing else.

... which has huge ramifications.


> > no. google works just fine, thank you. and i don't really care where
> > something came from when google returns a result. it's irrelevant.
>
> And I suppose if you want to see several links you will open them in
> tabs? Or will you repeat the query for every new page you want to
> visit?

in separate tabs. which is actually more useful than ZUI because i don't have 
to zoom/pan/zoom to go from tab A to tab D.

> The tabs are the spatial representation of your query (filtered to the
> items that you selected). With a ZUI, the pages could be open next to
> the original link, inside a very small square. After reading that link
> you could zoom out to go back to the results list (using the universal
> navigation interface instead of the ad-hoc tabs).

giving me nothing more than a zooming headache over the tabs =(

> > first, calendaring is perfectly suited to spatial organization for what
> > should be pretty obvious reasons.
>
> Yes, because an abstract relationship ("before" and "after") has been
> turned into a spatial representation

yes. and there is also an inherent clustering along virtually all dimensions 
involved: time (century : decade : year : month : day : hour), contact (by 
person) and locations.

> > a zooming interface is certainly good for certain things (like a city
> > map, an organizational chart or a calendar), but discussions of making it
> > the central desktop metaphore ignore that we don't use our computers
> > exclusively or even primarily for these types of activities.
>
> How do you characterize those activities not suitable to spatial
> interfaces? I can't think of any, because all which I figure will be
> transformed into a visual representation and located in a local
> context.

a good example is email. build yourself a zooming email reader and see how 
useful it is. remember, no scrollbars. =)

> > in fact, you know what i'd LOVE to see happen? i'd love to see people
> > interested in spatial representations stop trying to wedge it into places
> > it doesn't fit (e.g. the desktop as a whole) and start working with the
> > places that it would be a PERFECT fit for within the desktop, e.g. search
> > interfaces, calendaring, etc...
>
> Could we start replacing the K-menu with a K-ZUI? ;-)

sure. i actually played a bit with a fish eye kmenu a few years back, though i 
didn't particularly like the results graphically. but please, mock something 
up and we can test it. the K Menu is a gross place and could use some new 
ideas.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
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]