desktop June 2011

desktop@lists.fedoraproject.org

21 participants
17 discussions

Re: Proposal: Too similar application names
by Vitezslav Humpa 08 Jun '11

08 Jun '11

> I agree, this is a good starting point. I don't really see the point > of the popups, > but if other folks think they're necessary, I won't argue. Wouldn't have to be popups. Actually they are used now to provide a textual description of what the application does, e.g. for "Brasero Disk Burner" -> "Create and copy CDs and DVDs", which just seem better than having "Brasero Disk Burner" -> "Brasero". This unfortunately doesn't provide for the distinguishment we seek, e.g. in example of two terminals the popups are: "Terminal emulator" and "Use the command line" > In theory, the technical side should be a thirty second fix. The > issue would > be deciding new names. Some things shouldn't be too difficult, such as > renaming Software Updates to Software Sources. Combination of previous brings an idea - instead of modifying application names, we could alter the problematic applications' popups by adding a binary e.g like: "Terminal: Terminal emulator" and "Konsole: Use the command line". This way: + Both names would stay the same, so we wouldn't have do any actual renaming and (!) we'd evade any "arguing" among desktops + The original explanatory use of popups would be kept - Great for LXDE and XFCE, but there are no popups in Gnome 3 yet, thus out of direct reach of Fedora for now. > I wonder if this should be a QA test? It would help with improving the > end product for us to check things like this, but it is also fairly > subjective > as to what constitutes as 'too similar.' I'm for it, but the > aforementioned > subjective nature makes coming up with a clear release criteria > difficult. I agree that deciding what is "too similar" can be a tricky one. But for most of the current apps the problem's simpler - the names are the same. Let's bring this up on today's QA meeting, I am sure we'll get a good input on which way to go there. Thanks! Vita -- Vita Humpa Fedora QA

1 1

Space for wallpapers in Fedora 16
by Máirín Duffy 07 Jun '11

07 Jun '11

Hi everyone, The Fedora design team had a meeting today for Fedora 16 planning and we'd like to try for a four-wallpaper pack for Fedora 16. (We can provide a slideshow XML file for GNOME, if KDE / XFCE / LXDE support something like slideshows let us know and we can try to provide it). We wanted to provide a heads up so that you could account for the space early on in the cycle if you wanted all of the wallpapers for your spin; in the past when we've done a slideshow set it has caused last-minute space issues: we'd very much like to avoid that. Based on previous wallpapers and the high resolution we are targeting, 6-8 MB is probably a good guesstimate of the maximum amount of space we might need. In the end, we may need to pull back and focus on really polishing only one of the wallpapers; as the release progresses we can keep you updated on what to expect. If you're interested in following the artwork progress, we have an artboard here: http://publictest04.fedoraproject.org/artboard/ Is this okay? Thanks, ~m (As a favor to me, I'd appreciate it very much if you could keep me on the CC of replies :) )

2 1

Service enabled by default
by Jóhann B. Guðmundsson 07 Jun '11

07 Jun '11

I think it's time for the Gnome desktop team to revisit and review which services are enabled by default on the livecd/usb and enable only those that benefit the novice desktop end user. Alot of services are enabled by default that are aimed at enterprise users and to some extend enterprise hardware usages which would never be used on a regular desktop/tablet/notebook pc like for example fcoe, lldpad, iscsi, iscsid, mdmonitor etc. which administrators should enable encase they use it in their enterprise environment. A bit of discussion about this is happening in bug 707553 Thanks JBG

6 18

Re: Proposal: Too similar application names
by Bill Nottingham 04 Jun '11

04 Jun '11

Genes MailLists (lists(a)sapience.com) said: > The optional executable name should always be available. However these > details are really 'upstream' aren't they? Yeah, changing how the various desktop's launchers work is an upstream decision (in fact, changing what things are named in desktop files probably is as well.) Bill

2 1

Proposal: Too similar application names
by Vitezslav Humpa 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

Hey folks, At last Fedora QA meeting John Dulaney had a proposal concerning the issue of similar application names we use around Fedora desktops. For example: surely sometimes you had both GNOME and XFCE installed and went for menus to open - say a terminal. The environment would use the same icon and a same name for both gnome-terminal and xfce-terminal, which resulted in you opening the other app than desired, perhaps (thanks to Murphy's laws :) ) more often than the desired one. More examples of this are "Software updates"/"Software update"(just within GNOME), "System Monitor" for both gnome-system-monitor and ksysguard, some "system-config-*" utilities vs. GNOME control panel applets and more. This is a call for having a discussion on trying to establish some compromise - on what to put as a name in the desktop[1] file for corresponding applications around different Fedora desktops as well as among applications inside each of those. The goal is simply to avoid people being unable to recognize specific applications around the desktop menus etc., which we could reach simply by rethinking the "name" fields in the *.desktop files of such applications. The way KDE application launcher handles this also provides nice example for a design solution to this problem. They use a "Generic" (e.g. Terminal) field to describe the application primarily and have the name of the actual binary (e.g. Konsole) present in small letters when the generic name is not unique. For gnome-shell, in it's current in-high-development state, proposing a design like this may also be good idea. Other than that - at least handling this by making a renaming compromise among the desktop environments would be very nice. We were thinking on expanding the release criteria to have one to deal with this issue, but for sure we need to discuss this first. Thus - thoughts? :) (Might be a good idea in having the conversation joined in one list we are all subscribed - perhaps test or desktop?) Thanks! -- Vita Humpa Fedora QA

2 2

Re: Proposal: Too similar application names
by drago01 02 Jun '11

02 Jun '11

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:43 PM, Genes MailLists <lists(a)sapience.com> wrote: > On 06/02/2011 09:54 AM, Vitezslav Humpa wrote: >> Hey folks, >> > > (1) I think showing the executable name for every application is vital. > > Whether its directly in menu, popup or alternating pink flashing > lights .. :-) > Sorry but I have to disagree here, cryptic executable names don't belong in the UI at all.

1 0

Ready to support
by joseph reni 01 Jun '11

01 Jun '11

My name is Joseph Reni, I am a research psychologist by trade (I am a civilian scientist for NAWCTSD) , I work specifically in interface design research. Most of my experience is in setting up and deploying user analyses research through surveys and interactive assessments. I love prototyping and the interface development workflow. I am also a masters student at Iowa state University. I am excited to start working with Fedora usability and design. I would love it if someone seasoned within this community could give me a call to help get off to a running start, direct email would also be fine. I am hoping to find my niche within a Fedora community and start being a valued contributor. Thanks. Joseph Reni OS: Fedora 15 4079525163 (please call any time)

2 1

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

desktop June 2011