[Ayatana] unity dash lens buttons: move to top. expand filters by default.
1)The latest dash (with 11.10) has a list of lenses at the bottom- center. The icons for each lens(home, apps, files, music)are kinda small and non obvious as to their purpose. IMHO, both novices and experienced users will find it more useful if the lens buttons were accompanied by a name and were above the search bar (minimum mouse movement from clicking the dash button, visually obvious). | [icon]Home | [icon]Apps | [icon] FIlesFolders | [Icon] Music| |Search bar| 2)New users tend to browse for installed apps. It might be useful if the filter results list is expanded by default . presents a familiar/ simple method to browse. -- This message was sent from Launchpad by staticd (https://launchpad.net/~staticd-growthecommons) using the Contact this team link on the Ayatana Discussion team page (https://launchpad.net/~ayatana). For more information see https://help.launchpad.net/YourAccount/ContactingPeople ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!
2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also size and padding of interface controls. Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric. - Ubuntu http://image-upload.de/image/KUAqjL/28a9103bae.png - Windows 7 http://image-upload.de/image/uyfCCE/e1bc89e7fa.png Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface looks feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized windows). Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last cycles). So what to do? - Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons and that much padding/margin - use the same padding/margin in every application if possible - Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference Kind regards Thibaut PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win and Mac and could make more comparison screenshots it would be awesome. I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!
I've created such a comparsion. First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit). Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade). See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than Ubuntu fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with size that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what font size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of the font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more, not counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size. Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside. Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at the screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening to music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the designers. W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze: 2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com mailto:m...@canonical.com What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also size and padding of interface controls. Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric. * Ubuntu http://image-upload.de/image/KUAqjL/28a9103bae.png * Windows 7 http://image-upload.de/image/uyfCCE/e1bc89e7fa.png Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface looks feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized windows). Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last cycles). So what to do? * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons and that much padding/margin o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference Kind regards Thibaut PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win and Mac and could make more comparison screenshots it would be awesome. I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Tomasz Sałaciński attachment: comparsion.png___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Proposes to change launcher's behaviour with multiple windows
On 19/10/11 14:43, Evan Huus wrote: On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 9:36 AM, Matt Richardson m.richardson.1...@hotmail.co.uk mailto:m.richardson.1...@hotmail.co.uk wrote: I received this a few days ago so hopefully it should be fixed: - snip - * Tags added: udp ** Changed in: ayatana-design Status: Fix Released = Fix Committed This means only that the actual design desired here is not final, and will (hopefully) be discussed at the Ubuntu Developer Summit for 12.04. Status in Unity: Triaged Status in unity package in Ubuntu: Triaged The actual status of the bug is just 'triaged'. The bug will not actually be 'fixed' until these statuses change to 'Fix Released'. The way Ayatana uses launchpad tasks is not always immediately intuitive. Sorry for the confusion. Evan Correct, you need to look at the 'unity' project on bugs to track implementation status. The good news on this one is that Jason is currently targeting this bug for unity 4.26.0 SRU1 so hopefully it will be fixed soon. thanks for the bug report! cheers, John -- John Lea | Ubuntu Desktop User Experience Lead Canonical www.canonical.com | Ubuntu www.ubuntu.com 27th Floor, 21-24 Millbank Tower, London, SW1P 4QP Tel: +44 (0) 20 7630 2415 | Email: john@canonical.com ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!
I feel I should point out that at least in my case, Windows 7 has, after a fresh install, always defaulted to the 125% bigger font preset. My monitor is a 4:3 20in HP, 1600x1200. DPI as I recall is just about 100. I always prefer to set the fonts to the default setting (100%), but it doesn't seem to be the default. YMMV For what it's worth- on my hardware I don't mind the default font and padding size in Ubuntu, but on anything smaller than my laptop's 1400x1050 I imagine it would become annoying pretty fast. TR 2011/10/20 Tomasz Sałaciński tsalacin...@gmail.com I've created such a comparsion. First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit). Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade). See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than Ubuntu fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with size that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what font size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of the font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more, not counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size. Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside. Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at the screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening to music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the designers. W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze: 2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com mailto:m...@canonical.com What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also size and padding of interface controls. Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric. * Ubuntu http://image-upload.de/image/**KUAqjL/28a9103bae.pnghttp://image-upload.de/image/KUAqjL/28a9103bae.png * Windows 7 http://image-upload.de/image/**uyfCCE/e1bc89e7fa.pnghttp://image-upload.de/image/uyfCCE/e1bc89e7fa.png Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface looks feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized windows). Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last cycles). So what to do? * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons and that much padding/margin o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference Kind regards Thibaut PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win and Mac and could make more comparison screenshots it would be awesome. I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;) __**_ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/**ListHelphttps://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Tomasz Sałaciński ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!
The letters in the Segoe example run together, and in My opinion are a bit harder to read than the Ubuntu example. In addition to this, they look clearer because of improper hinting settings, which detracts from the visual appearance of the characters and also makes them harder to read. 2011/10/20 Tomasz Sałaciński tsalacin...@gmail.com: I've created such a comparsion. First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit). Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade). See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than Ubuntu fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with size that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what font size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of the font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more, not counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size. Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside. Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at the screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening to music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the designers. W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze: 2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com mailto:m...@canonical.com What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also size and padding of interface controls. Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric. * Ubuntu http://image-upload.de/image/KUAqjL/28a9103bae.png * Windows 7 http://image-upload.de/image/uyfCCE/e1bc89e7fa.png Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface looks feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized windows). Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last cycles). So what to do? * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons and that much padding/margin o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference Kind regards Thibaut PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win and Mac and could make more comparison screenshots it would be awesome. I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Tomasz Sałaciński ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Ian Santopietro Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html Eala Earendel enlga beorohtast Ofer middangeard monnum sended Pa gur yv y porthaur? Public GPG key (RSA): http://keyserver.ubuntu.com:11371/pks/lookup?op=getsearch=0x412F52DB1BBF1234 ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] reduce the font and ui size!
They are *slightly* harder to read because they're very small (9pt). Ubuntu should use Ubuntu 10, not 11. Remember, that such huge font makes working on smaller screens very annoying (no window will fit the screen, or will force user to scroll/move windows), working on bigger screen makes fonts very, very big. W dniu 2011-10-20 16:34, Ian Santopietro pisze: The letters in the Segoe example run together, and in My opinion are a bit harder to read than the Ubuntu example. In addition to this, they look clearer because of improper hinting settings, which detracts from the visual appearance of the characters and also makes them harder to read. 2011/10/20 Tomasz Sałacińskitsalacin...@gmail.com: I've created such a comparsion. First label shows default monospace font in Windows and in Ubuntu (gedit). Second label (Setup is loading...) shows Windows interface font (setup program) compared to Ubuntu interface font (made in Glade). See how much Windows fonts are clearer and take a lot less space than Ubuntu fonts. 90% of computer users in the world don't have any problem with size that Windows uses (I think they spent a lot more money on research what font size they should be using) - let's say 10% of them change the size of the font. It still leaves 80% of world computer users satisfied (maybe more, not counting Macs) with the font we see in Windows. Even with a lot less userbase MORE Ubuntu users are complaining about font size. Imagine when reading a source code file in gedit you have to scroll every few lines.. then you have to find where you've left reading. It hurts your eyes and makes using of computer a simple pain in the backside. Of coure - Ubuntu 11 looks fancy. But users will do more than looking at the screenshots. If they see that the system is useless except for listening to music, watching videos and browsing Facebook - they just stick to using Windows. With such big fonts and additional padding, windows in Ubuntu are a lot bigger than in other systems. If this is by design, then the design is simply completely wrong. You can't satisfy all users, but you should try satisfying most user's needs, instead of personal preferences of the designers. W dniu 2011-10-20 15:00, Thibaut Brandscheid pisze: 2011/10/17 Matthew Paul Thomasm...@canonical.com mailto:m...@canonical.com What would help here is for someone to make a screenshot comparison of the same windows, laid out in exactly the same positions, on Ubuntu, Windows, and OS X. We might find that the problem is partly font size, but partly also size and padding of interface controls. Here are two similar images showing the file browser and text editor in Windows 7 and Ubuntu Oneiric. * Ubuntuhttp://image-upload.de/image/KUAqjL/28a9103bae.png * Windows 7http://image-upload.de/image/uyfCCE/e1bc89e7fa.png Padding (buttons) and font size are smaller and therefore the interface looks feels cleaner in Windows 7. Thats the reason why smaller windows seems to be more useful in Windows than in Ubuntu (compared same sized windows). Traditionally GNOME has a lot of padding (negative example → Totem controls) and wasts a lot of screen space (has been reduced a bit last cycles). So what to do? * Analise every default application UI if they need that big buttons and that much padding/margin o use the same padding/margin in every application if possible * Reduce padding and font size - just a bit → huge difference Kind regards Thibaut PS: If anybody uses Ubuntu, Win and Mac and could make more comparison screenshots it would be awesome. I use Windows only for gaming → my Wintendoo ;) ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Tomasz Sałaciński ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- Tomasz Sałaciński ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or documents every time they log in. (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat, Firefox, and a time sheet text document.) Every version of Ubuntu has had a Startup Applications settings window for choosing applications to open automatically at login. Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular settings. So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System Settings window. My design extends the existing User Accounts panel; this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest account. It also allows opening files, not just applications. I'd appreciate your feedback on the design. https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/LoginItems Cheers - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6gP2sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoWiACgvXz7AU7WCnKLQQe3JLdAMMiv e+QAn0ziqngFlwI4G8Et3EDDnEGHBInU =f3De -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login
It would be nice if this panel could have option to start the application minimized - for example Empathy, Skype or Pidgin. And a feature, which I think some users will find useful - startup applications added by system administrator (that cannot be deleted by ordinary user) - for example some scripts that will log something, or download something to the desktop. W dniu 2011-10-20 17:34, Matthew Paul Thomas pisze: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or documents every time they log in. (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat, Firefox, and a time sheet text document.) Every version of Ubuntu has had a Startup Applications settings window for choosing applications to open automatically at login. Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular settings. So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System Settings window. My design extends the existing User Accounts panel; this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest account. It also allows opening files, not just applications. I'd appreciate your feedback on the design. https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/LoginItems Cheers - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6gP2sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoWiACgvXz7AU7WCnKLQQe3JLdAMMiv e+QAn0ziqngFlwI4G8Et3EDDnEGHBInU =f3De -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp -- tommy ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ayatana] Fwd: Re: New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login
Sorry, forgot to reply to list Original Message Subject: Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 17:18:37 +0100 From: Matt Richardson m.richardson.1...@hotmail.co.uk To: Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com Isn't this functionality still provided by the Startup Applications function of the Power Cog menu? I use that to start Thunderbird and Firefox at login. Matt On 20/10/11 16:34, Matthew Paul Thomas wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or documents every time they log in. (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat, Firefox, and a time sheet text document.) Every version of Ubuntu has had a Startup Applications settings window for choosing applications to open automatically at login. Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular settings. So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System Settings window. My design extends the existing User Accounts panel; this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest account. It also allows opening files, not just applications. I'd appreciate your feedback on the design. https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/LoginItems Cheers - -- mpt -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk6gP2sACgkQ6PUxNfU6ecoWiACgvXz7AU7WCnKLQQe3JLdAMMiv e+QAn0ziqngFlwI4G8Et3EDDnEGHBInU =f3De -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login
On 20 October 2011 11:34, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote: I'd appreciate your feedback on the design. https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/LoginItems I like porting Nautilus's Open with Other Application chooser to the Login Items screen. The current Add button in Startup Applications is rather un-user-friendly, especially if one clicks the Browse button. GNOME has really overloaded the Shell term. I'd suggest renaming Add Shell Command to something like Add Custom Command. In your mockup of the Add Shell Command dialog, you show a file folder; I think that's a bad idea as the file-browser isn't really a good way to look for shell commands. If it's not too difficult to add, bash auto-completion would be cool though. Some examples of custom shell commands are chromium-browser --incognito or transmission-gtk -m (to start Transmission minimized). A drop-down box for the + button is new to GNOME, isn't it? As a side point, I think if Name Photo Security are 2 separate subpanels, then those subpanels would be mostly empty. Jeremy ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or documents every time they log in. (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat, Firefox, and a time sheet text document.) Every version of Ubuntu has had a Startup Applications settings window for choosing applications to open automatically at login. Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular settings. So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System Settings window. My design extends the existing User Accounts panel; this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest account. It also allows opening files, not just applications. I'd appreciate your feedback on the design. https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/LoginItems Very nice, I quite like it! One thing that I would like it to support is mounting partitions. I have my music on a separate internal NTFS partition so that it can be accessed by Windows. At the moment, the first thing I have to do when I log in is browse to that folder in Nautilus so that it gets mounted (by gvfs?). The only way currently to have a partition auto-mount on login is via /etc/fstab, which affects all users and requires root access. An Add Partition... option below the Add Shell Command... option would be absolutely fantastic. (Obviously the label and location are subject to change). Just my two cents, Evan ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
[Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions
[Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.] I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of Ayatana, but this list is my best guess. Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial, Times New Roman, and Courier New). (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/) However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04 (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and Times. A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web; so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that Linux has bad fonts. This becomes even more important as so much of what people do on a computer now is within the browser. Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!), Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu Sans, which is a close enough approximation of Verdana, as far as free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of Lucida.) In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply much greater versatility for fonts on the web: * Georgia - Bitstream Charter * Verdana - DejaVu Sans * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable] * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius] * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald] * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core] * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis] * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter] Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math, but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that make some of these packages not technically free, but I haven't researched that. Things *do* look more authentic with the msttcorefonts package installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be included on the install disc. Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be Liberation. In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoughts? -Jay ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login
I like where things are going here, but wouldn't it be better to have a remember session(s) option (currently xfce, kde, etc. have it), also kde has Activities which is really great feature, is like having multiple user sessions with its own preferences, but very easy to manage, add , delete, stop ,etc. From: eapa...@gmail.com Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2011 12:50:57 -0400 To: m...@canonical.com CC: Ayatana@lists.launchpad.net; seb...@ubuntu.com Subject: Re: [Ayatana] New design: Opening applications and documents automatically at login On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 11:34 AM, Matthew Paul Thomas m...@canonical.com wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi folks For some people, it is useful to open particular applications or documents every time they log in. (For example, every day when I log in at work, I launch XChat, Firefox, and a time sheet text document.) Every version of Ubuntu has had a Startup Applications settings window for choosing applications to open automatically at login. Gnome 3 in Ubuntu 11.10 now has an integrated System Settings window (gnome-control-center). But it does not yet integrate these particular settings. So, yesterday I finished a design for these settings in the System Settings window. My design extends the existing User Accounts panel; this avoids adding an extra panel, lets administrators troubleshoot login items for other accounts, and lets them set items for the guest account. It also allows opening files, not just applications. I'd appreciate your feedback on the design. https://live.gnome.org/Design/SystemSettings/LoginItems Very nice, I quite like it! One thing that I would like it to support is mounting partitions. I have my music on a separate internal NTFS partition so that it can be accessed by Windows. At the moment, the first thing I have to do when I log in is browse to that folder in Nautilus so that it gets mounted (by gvfs?). The only way currently to have a partition auto-mount on login is via /etc/fstab, which affects all users and requires root access. An Add Partition... option below the Add Shell Command... option would be absolutely fantastic. (Obviously the label and location are subject to change). Just my two cents, Evan ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] [Bug 863399] Re: Unity needs a way to switch (tab) between windows on current workspace
The Forums thread at http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1862661 is essentially correct - the relationship between Workspaces and the rest of Unity is inconsistent. That's simply because we have not yet got to implement Workspaces the way we'd like, and what's currently shipping is the Compiz Workspaces plugin bolted alongside the rest of Unity. Some pieces are already in place, for example, the Launcher distinguishes between apps running on this workspace, and other workspaces. Among many other changes we'd like to see in Workspaces: * Alt-TAB should only switch between apps on the current Workspace * Clicking on a Launcher icon for an app running elsewhere but not in the current Workspace, which knows how to have multiple windows and create new windows, should create a new window in the current Workspace I've cc'd John Lea and Stewart Wilson who are the right folk to lead further discussion. Mark signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] [Bug 863399] Re: Unity needs a way to switch (tab) between windows on current workspace
Den 20. okt. 2011 21:22, skrev Mark Shuttleworth: * Alt-TAB should only switch between apps on the current Workspace * Clicking on a Launcher icon for an app running elsewhere but not in the current Workspace, which knows how to have multiple windows and create new windows, should create a new window in the current Workspace That sounds great. It would be nice if we could use Workspaces as contexts. For instance, if I click a link on workspace B and I have a browser there, then that browser should be used, even if that's not the last browser window I interacted with. That could be really useful in many circumstances. For instance, I like to take breaks from programming and play a little guitar. If I could just switch to another workspace and have all my stuff ready without disrupting my development space, that'd be very nice. Oh, I'm excited about this cycle. It'll be interesting to see how many apps will use dynamic quicklists, lenses, etc. Jo-Erlend Schinstad ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
Re: [Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions
Is this ubuntu has bad fonts really a thing? I mean, the Joe user can't barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should focus on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the system look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot of complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad... *Peterson* *http://petercast.net* On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy topdownji...@gmail.com wrote: [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.] I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of Ayatana, but this list is my best guess. Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial, Times New Roman, and Courier New). (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/) However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04 (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and Times. A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web; so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that Linux has bad fonts. This becomes even more important as so much of what people do on a computer now is within the browser. Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!), Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu Sans, which is a close enough approximation of Verdana, as far as free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of Lucida.) In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply much greater versatility for fonts on the web: * Georgia - Bitstream Charter * Verdana - DejaVu Sans * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable] * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius] * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald] * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core] * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis] * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter] Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math, but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that make some of these packages not technically free, but I haven't researched that. Things *do* look more authentic with the msttcorefonts package installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be included on the install disc. Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be Liberation. In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoughts? -Jay ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to : ayatana@lists.launchpad.net Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ayatana More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp ___ Mailing list:
Re: [Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions
As a quick aside: http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+ugly+fonts returns over 1 million results. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Peterson Silva peterson@gmail.com wrote: Is this ubuntu has bad fonts really a thing? I mean, the Joe user can't barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should focus on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the system look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot of complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad... Peterson http://petercast.net On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy topdownji...@gmail.com wrote: [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.] I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of Ayatana, but this list is my best guess. Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial, Times New Roman, and Courier New). (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/) However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04 (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and Times. A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web; so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that Linux has bad fonts. This becomes even more important as so much of what people do on a computer now is within the browser. Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!), Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu Sans, which is a close enough approximation of Verdana, as far as free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of Lucida.) In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply much greater versatility for fonts on the web: * Georgia - Bitstream Charter * Verdana - DejaVu Sans * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable] * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius] * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald] * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core] * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis] * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter] Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math, but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that make some of these packages not technically free, but I haven't researched that. Things *do* look more authentic with the msttcorefonts package installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be included on the install disc. Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to the DejaVu family. As I stated before, I think FreeSans and FreeSerif are more similar to Arial and Times, but if metric-compatibility is really that much of a concern, the defaults should at least be Liberation. In any case I do think *something* can be done to improve the typographical experience on the web in Ubuntu. Thoughts? -Jay ___ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ayatana Post to :
Re: [Ayatana] Reconsidering default font substitutions
Yeah, although that doesn't necessarily refer to that problem. 3 of the first 10 results were about bad fonts on google earth, how many might be about wine apps... Only one of them was about ugly fonts in firefox, and it was on Hardy =] *Peterson* *http://petercast.net* On 20 October 2011 20:10, topdownjimmy topdownji...@gmail.com wrote: As a quick aside: http://www.google.com/search?q=ubuntu+ugly+fonts returns over 1 million results. On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Peterson Silva peterson@gmail.com wrote: Is this ubuntu has bad fonts really a thing? I mean, the Joe user can't barely tell Times New Roman from Arial oO I just found this curious, but I agree with everything, and we should focus on polishing fonts and everything --- it's an aspect that makes the system look slick and all. I just found it funny because I've never read a lot of complaints about the fonts in Ubuntu being bad... Peterson http://petercast.net On 20 October 2011 15:34, topdownjimmy topdownji...@gmail.com wrote: [Apologies if this is a duplicate message; I sent this first with an email address other than the one in my Launchpad profile.] I'm not positive that desktop typography falls within the scope of Ayatana, but this list is my best guess. Currently in /etc/fonts/conf.d/30-metric-aliases.conf (and for as long as I can remember in Ubuntu), Liberation Sans is specified as an acceptable alternative for Arial, and Liberation Serif as an acceptable alternative for Times New Roman. The historical reason for this is that the Liberation set of typefaces was specifically designed to be metric-compatible with its corresponding Microsoft fonts (Arial, Times New Roman, and Courier New). (http://press.redhat.com/2007/05/09/liberation-fonts/) However, it's my opinion that having this metric-compatibility is not as important as having similar letterforms. Especially if we are paying special attention to aesthetics in 12.04 (http://www.markshuttleworth.com/archives/810), I think these font substitutions are something we should reconsider. It seems as though these font configuration files haven't been updated in a while, as they include some fonts that aren't even included in Ubuntu anymore (e.g., Thorndale AMT, Albany AMT). FreeSans and FreeSerif, as opposed to the Liberation set, are almost indistinguishable from Arial and Times. A major reason that I think this change would be important is the web; so many sites are now calling for Arial/Helvetica that in Ubuntu are rendered in Liberation Sans, and to someone coming from Windows or Mac OS, this can look very alien. Sites like Google/Gmail just don't look *right*, and this lends itself to the common belief that Linux has bad fonts. This becomes even more important as so much of what people do on a computer now is within the browser. Another shortcoming of the current font config files, as regards the web, is that there are no substitutes defined for many common fonts called for in stylesheets -- Lucida Grande/Sans, Georgia (!!), Verdana, Tahoma, etc. Facebook, in particular, has a font stack that calls for Lucida first, Tahoma second, and Verdana third. A new Ubuntu user who goes to Facebook for the first time will see *none* of these alternatives. (Although, in truth, they will most likely see DejaVu Sans, which is a close enough approximation of Verdana, as far as free fonts go. Still, it will be jarring not to see some variant of Lucida.) In fact, there are many substitutions that could be taking place, but currently are not. There are many free font packages that could supply much greater versatility for fonts on the web: * Georgia - Bitstream Charter * Verdana - DejaVu Sans * Lucida - Luxi Sans [xfonts-scalable] * Gill Sans - Gillius [ttf-adf-gillius] * Baskerville - Baskervald [ttf-adf-baskervald] * Franklin Gothic - UnDotum [ttf-unfonts-core] * Futura / Century Gothic - URW Gothic Uralic [ttf-uralic], Beteckna [ttf-beteckna], or Universalis [ttf-adf-universalis] * Palatino - URW Palladio L Roman * Goudy Bookletter - Goudy Bookletter [ttf-goudybookletter] Granted, adding these font packages to the default install would increase the size of the install disc, and I haven't done the math, but some of them are already included, and a couple of the others aren't very large at all. Also, there might be licensing issues that make some of these packages not technically free, but I haven't researched that. Things *do* look more authentic with the msttcorefonts package installed, but that is, of course, not free, and thus shouldn't be included on the install disc. Finally, the default serif and sans-serif fonts in Firefox are set to DejaVu Sans and DejaVu Serif; this is also strange, since in Windows they are Arial and Times New Roman, which bear little similarity to the DejaVu family. As I stated
