Shawn Walker wrote: > On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 1:13 PM, James Cornell <sparcdr at sparcdr.com> wrote: > >> Andrew Watkins wrote: >> > Shawn Walker wrote: >> > >> >> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 9:54 AM, Calum Benson <Calum.Benson at sun.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >>> On Wed, 2008-03-12 at 13:08 -0400, Sebastien Roy wrote: >> >>> > I also don't see the point in cluttering panels with needless menus >> if >> >>> > they're already available through the "Launch" menu. >> >>> >> >>> I agree, but currently we don't have the 'Launch' menu on the panel in >> >>> Indiana... so we need to decide which to go with. (One advantage of the >> >>> Apps/Places/Systems menus is that broader and shallower menu systems >> >>> are, generally, easier to navigate than narrow and deep ones.) >> >>> >> >> I too was initially thrown off when I first saw the "shallow menus" in >> >> GNOME when I used Ubuntu. >> >> >> >> After I got used to it though, I loved it! >> >> >> >> I personally am in favour of keeping the Apps, Places, System menus as >> >> I think they are great for easy navigation. >> >> >> >> It's so much better than having one large menu and having to dig >> >> through it for commonly used things. >> >> >> >> >> > >> > I am still a big fan of the old JDS layout and with the one panel at the >> > bottom and one launch menu. I know it was there to look like Windows XP, >> > but it works. I know and the end of the day it does not matter since we >> > can change it to any which way, but I still believe that we should have >> > a slightly different look and feel than the standard GNOME interface. >> > >> > Andrew >> >> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> >> > desktop-discuss mailing list >> > desktop-discuss at opensolaris.org >> > >> I like the current JDS layout, which is based on XP from a usability >> standpoint. Most of us are just used to Windows' layout, may it be from >> using Windows 95-Vista, the placement is the norm. While popularity is >> no reason to do anything, let alone change or keep it, I find the >> current layout more productive than taking up the whole screen with >> panels. Pixels are of value to the user, even on higher resolution >> monitors, especially for developers. Using up extra pixels is the >> devil's work, and I find it annoying to say the least when tons of icons >> scatter the launcher and panels with redundant links clutter the desktop >> experience. >> > > I would agree if I believe they were redundant. > > The precious screen real estate argument is starting to get specious > as screens get bigger and bigger. > > Plus, as others mentioned earlier, having something "right there" that > doesn't auto-hide, is a great productivity boost for power-users. > > I like being able to reach up to the Places menu and instantly access > folders I frequently use, or quickly get to the systems options while > I'm in an application. > > In addition, I think Ubuntu has proven that it has wide popularity > among its users. > > Still, this is something that could be relegated to a "appearance" or > style applet that could easily reconfigure the desktop for the user > based on a set of pre-defined profiles. > > If the user is running an e-mail client that integrates with the tray, why would he need an icon to launch the program when the applet in the tray lets them open up their inbox? If there's two browsers easily accessible on a default layout which provide the same functionality, why put the user at a disadvantage? Use what's the fastest, most reliable, and leave the rest in the menus.
Things that should be just there include: Battery applet Sound applet Web browser Desktop computer icon Trash (I don't find the panel-based icon useful since I can just remove icons with right click) -- When does a user typically delete more than one item without having a nautilus browser open? The default behavoir of a full experience nautilus file browser takes care of having the trash icon at all) Nothing more, nothing less, maybe a workspace switcher (Which has been the norm) and a clock (Obviously) James
