Hello Calum, I'm suffering from the usual email overload and evidently was reading this thread backwards. here I get to your main reply :-)
>> Question: I've often heard in usability studies people basically >> asking for basically a basic layout of information in the UI to be >> like Windows... not that they want a clone of Windows, but just >> that this is what their muscle memory and mental familiarity >> expect. With this in mind, I wonder why we aren't doing something >> more like Windows XP's Start menu, which is dual columned and >> separates recently frequently used apps from links to common >> places in the filesystems/dataspace, and so on. I'd think that >> would be better for the familiarity/usability of this environment. > > Have to say I loathe the two-columned menu and turn it off whenever > I get the chance :) I know other people who do the same thing :-) > But I'd be happy enough to experiment with it if we have the > engineering resources to do so. That would be a pretty major > functionality patch I suspect though, and one of our goals is to > reduce the already-high number of those we maintain, so that may be > one for the back burner this time around. (If, as Glynn says, > Novell are going with it for their next release, though, we may not > have to wait too long.) That might be good. (I did see the screenshot of the Novell one which is rather busy, but is more in the spirit of the XP and vista ones) >>> From a purely "appearance" standpoint, I'm also a bit concerned >>> that our Launch menu looks basically like the Windows one did in >>> 2000. Wouldn't that give folks somewhat familiar with the >>> Microsoft UI transitions to have a gut-level feeling that we're >>> very dated and old fashioned? > > That is somewhat deliberate (or at least it was when we first > released JDS); most companies and institutions we were shooting for > weren't using the latest and greatest Windows, so we were trying to > present something that looked familiar to Windows 95/98 users to > minimize their retraining efforts (which was our overarching goal > for the JDS at the time). > > Of course our target market has changed a little since then, so an > update may be appropriate. As yet though, our marketing folks > haven't been sufficiently forthcoming about what flavours of > Windows our potential "switcher" market is now using, so if you > know, please tell me :) I don't actually know, but that's a good point. I can guess, but that's no better than anyone else's guess :-) >> (on the other hand, I can't figure out how one changes what is in >> the quick launch area. Maybe if that were more obviously >> presented it would help this concern?) > > Well, I'm /assuming/ we're at least going to modify the menu editor > that comes with 2.14, so that you can add/remove quick launch items > there. Unfortunately, that's only currently accessible by right- > clicking the Launch menu, which is v. poor. And the editor is > built into the panel code AFAIK, so because it's not a separate > application, I don't know how easy it might be to add a "Menu > Editor" item for it to the Launch menu. So, this sounds like an open issue! > >> APPLICATIONS MENU >> - I understand the importance of accessibility. Yet, it always >> bothers me that it is the first thing on the list. I'm routinely >> ending up in it when I wanted to be in Accessories. I don't know >> if this is Windows muscle memory, or just that both start with >> "Access" and so it takes me a moment to notice I'm going to the >> wrong one. (given that these are more 'how do I get my system >> working' kinds of things, I'd expect them more in the system tools >> area). > > I'd agree this is kind of annoying... we've considered calling it > "Universal Access" in the past to get around this, but of course > that's locale specific. I'd be happy to relocate them, but it was > the accessibility team who wanted them in their own menu, so they'd > probably have to agree to that too. Are any of them reading this thread? >> SYSTEM TOOLS >> - I don't quite understand the distinction between System Tools >> and Administration (and, given some of the things in this list, >> Preferences). When I've got my administrator hat on, the Windows >> division of some sys admin tools into Control Panels -> >> Performance -> Admin Tools (or whatever it is called) and some in >> the Accessories menu drives me batty. I'm sure if I were a >> professional admin I'd have memorized which is which, but as I'm >> not it seems random which goes where. I'm concerned you'll be >> doing the same thing here. > > I'd agree this is probably the biggest source of confusion in the > current proposal. > > Having thought about it a bit more, I think all these things > probably break down into: > > - Settings that affect only your desktop environment, > independent of the > computer you're logged into, e.g. background, fonts, > (networked) printers. > > - Applications or settings that affect a specific computer (or > something attached to it) for all users who log into it, e.g. > disk > partitions, services, network configuration. > > and possibly: > > - Settings that affect all users' desktop environments, > independent of the computer > they're logged into > > but I can't think of any examples of that last one at the moment, > other than setting system-wide gconf defaults. > > Does that sound like a clearer delineation? If so, what would you > call those categories? As a technical person, I like the distinction you make. I don't know if it would make a difference to a casual end user... I don't think their understanding goes that deep. Maybe do a draft of your spec with that arrangement and see how it feels? > Have to admit I'm a little unclear about what should really go > here... it was Frank Ludolph who suggested the 'username' menu. > His original suggestion was that it should just contain all the > folders in your home directory, or some sanitized version thereof. > However, that leaves all the Bookmark and Network Places stuff > that's on the community's "Places" menu (which Frank didn't really > like, hence his Username suggestion) with nowhere else to go, > unless we keep a Places menu as well. > > This also relates to the "should we still emphasise the Documents > folder over the Home folder everywhere" debate. Frank's suggestion > that we introduce "username" as a synonym for "Home" has its > merits, but also its problems-- there's no guarantee that a user's > home directory will be the same as their username (a prime example > being that root's home directory is often "/" rather than "/root"). I think the answer here is how much we expect an average person to be working in their home directory rather than their Documents directory. That is, what usage model do we want to encourage? Windows clearly doesn't want folks poking into the home directory (it is reasonably hard to get there, and there is a lot of "junk" there. The Mac isn't so strong in this regard, for it gives you easy access to both (with a slight preference for the home directory, even though there is "junk" there too (but, apps put "junk" into the Documents folder too. Sigh). >> Also, Maybe it is because the rest of this menu is shared by all >> users but each user gets their own set of network servers? > > Yes, that's pretty much the case... apart from Desktop, Documents > and CD/DVD creator, the menu is just a list of the user's > bookmarked folders/mounts/network locations, plus the means to add > to those. > >> - Not sure what to make of CD/DVD Creator... Not sure what the >> overall interaction is once I've chosen it. > > It opens a special file manager window into which you can drag > files to be burned to CD/DVD. The window has a "Burn to CD" button > you click when you're finished. Much like a Burn folder in OSX, > except you can't have more than one of them, or choose where to > store it. Evidently this doesn't open automatically when you stick in a blank CD? david
