Re: [Usability] Reasoning behind default panel setup?

[Steve Frécinaux <nudrema gmail com>]

David Tenser wrote:
> Thanks to Alan for the introduction, and to Evandro for the history and
> background of the default panel layout. I think I'm ready to continue
> the discussion (or, rather, actually start it). :)
>
> The reason why I'm posting about all this here is because I was
> recommended to do so by gnome-panel developer Vincent Untz. I see three
> general problems with the current default panel layout:
>
> 1. Icons are very small on a 24px panel.
>
> Many icons, especially application icons, generally look better when
> displayed in a larger size. The current layout, using two 24px panels,
> makes everything on the panels very small. This also has the drawback of
> making icons harder to target.

On the other hand, and especially on a small resolution, you can have 
more small icons than big ones. You won't be able to put 10 32px icons 
between the menu and the notification area, especially if you remove one 
out of the two panels.

Besides this, I often see KDE users using a special applet to put two 
ranges of icons in their kicker. This mean they have two (shorter) ranks 
of 16px icons (this allow them to have a larger window list). So I doubt 
"bigger and more beautiful" icons make the point here.

> Alan Horkan and Evandro mentioned Fitt's law as one of the reasons for
> using two panels. While I agree that the corners are important to
> utilize, Gnome actually only makes use of two of them. The other two are
> wasted by the time/date applet and the trash can.

As Kalle says, I'm not sure the time/calendar applet is a waste of 
space, I click on it regularly to see the datum or for various 
date-related reasons.

> * Easier to spot, recognize, and click on icons. Also, better looking icons.

But worse looking everything else. I don't think you'll increase the 
size of the icons from the notification area for some practical reason 
(as KDE has a big panel but small notification icons). I don't think 
you'll increase the font size of the menu or the clock. So you'll end up 
increasing the size of the whole panel to have cleaner icons, that's 
good, but you'll have a lot of ugly margins everywhere. How many icons 
are there by default ? 3 ?

> * More vertical space available for applications.

But less horizontal space. Add the width of the menu, the volume 
control, the clock, the network applet(s), a few icons and the 
notification area, and that won't let you much space for the window 
list. That is even worse for small res.

Given that you assume that the average user does not use the virtual 
desktops, it probably means that the average user has lots of windows on 
his main desktop, right ? So you need a lot of horizontal space to 
display all those window buttons. The window list does not support 
multiple row yet, afaik, despite it could be fixed. But it would be more 
difficult to click on the second row because it wouldn't touch the 
border of the screen.

I agree that vertical space is critical on widescreen, but horizontal 
space is critical too for small screens, perhaps even more than vertical 
space. You have to make a trade-off, therefore.

> * Familiar environment for ex-Windows users (let's not forget them --
> there are a lot of them), and even KDE users.

And those users are always looking after solutions because of the waste 
of horizontal space. Just look at the multirow-launchers applet from 
KDE, or the button of the windows quick bar to see hidden icons. Just 
look at the way windows “groups windows”, and so on.

Indeed, I know two friends of mine who are using KDE, and adopted the 
gnome-style panels, because they found it more practical and less 
space-wasting.

> * Less clutter and confusion, by removing some of the default applets.

There is not so much applets in the base config imho.

> * It would not include the workspace switcher. While multiple desktops
> is a very useful feature, it's not something "normal" users ever use.

Perhaps you should educate the users instead of hiding the 
functionnalities they don't use. Users are not used to multiple desktop 
before switching to linux since it does not exist on windows or macos. 
Anyway they are not used to every Gnome specifities at all at that time.

More seriously, when I show Gnome to new people, desktop switching is 
something they like and they appreciate much, despite they don't use it 
very often when they just surf on the net with MSN. I don't know the 
idea of removing it is good.

> * It would not look crowded just because two panels are merged into one.
> The date/time applet only displays the time by default now, making the
> current top panel even more empty. That and the workspace switcher sums
> up to a lot of horizontal pixels saved.

If you want to keep the gnome menu, you'll end up with about 400 pixels 
for the window list.

> I'd be happy to do a simple mockup of how the proposal would look like
> if anyone is interested. Thanks for reading this far and hopefully I
> have been clear enough about the suggestions.

I'd be really happy to see your mockup, and especially if you could 
address the issues about the small width of my screen.

So, to do it short, I think that making the panel(s) bigger is not a 
good idea (unless you have a panel with only icons). I also don't know 
if it is really possible to keep an usable window list if you put 
everything on one panel.

Perhaps there should be some "template" layout, either you choose the 
widescreen layout, or the normal screen layout, on the first start. 
Anyway I don't think it's a good idea.

By the way, did you consider the idea of using a vertical panel ?