On Saturday 13 October 2012, Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > > narrow to hold unit indicators to me, but I suppose this would > > change in the final implementation > > We can do a lot better than this. > > Note the complete lack of visual alignment, the mix of widget placement > strategies (left, right; vertical, horizontal) .. meh. > > So .. let's step back and reconsider our assumptions. > > Is this something a person configures *often*? No. So does it need to be > hyper optimized for speed usage? No. > > How much granularity do we need to offer in the UI for things like how long > to wait until a password is required? Not much. >
I'll answer to this very briefly, with a short synopsys of what i think about that dialog: How ends up in the details, order and disposition of widgets, i don't care that much, but there are some things that are important for me: * it should remain very simple, showing as little as possible (not more than the current dialog anyways) * both the "simple locker" and the screensaver are not here to stay, but are meant to be a transition to a single one based on plasma-overlay, so don't lose too much time with the configuration that regards them * anything regarding the particular appearance/behavior of the plasma-overlay locker (wallpaper, locker greeter, whatever) should be in the preview mode of the greeter, as is now: it's direct manipulation vs a disconnected remote control that is that dialog (concept present all over the place in plasma) * yes, the plasma based locker needs a bit of ui refresh as well (was thinking about always showing the unlock dialog, and the toolbox only when previewed, when running would be always systemimmutable) * when the plasma based locker will be good enough, and when there will be enough qml wallpapers, i think the simple and xscreensaver can be killed those are just my two cents Cheers, Marco Martin _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
