Sorry to be so late in this thread. First, it is no wonder that this thread got so much contribution. The term *best embedded ui* appeared a couple of time, and everybody has a different opinion about what should be "best".
May I add that "embedded" is also a great source of confusion all over the web. It denotes all and nothing, ranging from watches (e.g. Ruputer, the watch that runs Waba) to old PCs you leave in a corner as server... also, devices without GUI. When I see a Palm, I find that its screen is dammned small (160x160). I saw recently a Sony Cli� (a better Palm w/ PalmOS) and I still had the same feeling (320x320 AFAIK). Recently Olivier showed us the TuxScreen he just received (800x600). All are so different, but definately embedded. Let's also talk about the users. You can aim your platform at "dumb users", "power users", "hackers", etc. Sometimes, depending on the situation, the hacker becomes close to the dumb user: when you're in a hurry in a taxi and you must find an address, you want to find the info in just a couple of manipulations. The reverse is true: the dumb user sitting in a train for hours could want to explore a bit more his device (and become less dumb). For hand-held devices with small screen, yes, having many apps sharing the screen at the same time seems a nonsense. However, even if you have one principal app taking about 80% of the screen, there can be some other apps displaying stuff in toolbars. There can be also "dormant apps" (gui speaking) that could pop-up a window upon given events... There may be even devices without touchscreen. Changing the apps placement by hand, using keys, becomes the a real pain. On the for instance TuxScreen, it's quite different. 800x600 is small enough to justify a space-saving GUI. Non-overlapping is also good. But it's big enough to display multiple apps simultaneously. There are plenty of papers, PhD thesis, talks, etc. about GUIs/usability on the web, and thousands of opinions and cookbook reciepes. All in all, I found this one interesting: * effective to use (effectiveness) * efficient to use (efficiency) * safe to use (safety) * have good utility (utility) * easy to learn (learnability) * easy to remember how to use (memorability) but you'll notice that: 1�) this is no practical answer 2�) it involves global application design perhaps even more than just GUI design. I would just add: * be cool (customizability) I generally agree with Eric's point of view as far as it concerns hand-held devices. I fully agree when Micah says the app programmer should not care about the arrangement. I half agree Micah when he say it should neither be decided by the manufacturer. Because the manufacturer best knows the specificities of the device and can propose a default behaviour. But I agree that the user should be able to change the default behaviour. As a conclusion, I'd say we need several kinds of launcher, each one targetted for a device class, caring for the apps placement, and knowing whether+how to show/hide/kill apps. A launcher for portable device could be configured to terminate an app when you start another one; or just to hide the old one. A launcher for bigger screens could leave complete freedom to the user; or divide the screen evenly; or simulate workspaces... Pascal -- Pascal Bauermeister Head of Software Development SMARTDATA PSE-A / EPFL CH-1015 Lausanne http://www.smartdata.ch mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Phone: +41 (21) 693 84 98 fax: +41 (21) 693 84 91 _______________________________________________ Pgui-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/pgui-devel
