Re: UI Review
Hmm. I'm sure it would be worthwhile, Calum. We're (hopefully) perpetually attracting new developers and community members who may not be automatically familiar with the HIG. Doing a review is a good idea not just for the apps, but for their benefit too. Anna El mar, 07-02-2006 a las 15:17 +, Calum Benson escribió: I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to bother? :) Cheeri, Calum. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 17:19 +, Calum Benson wrote: > On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 00:07 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: > > > > If we're going with the new Clearlooks, does that need any sort of > > UI or a11y review? I know that there have been sweeping changes. > > There is a lot more blue. > > Theme changes, even to the default theme, haven't historically come > under the banner of UI reviews, as they generally implement the stuff > that the HIG doesn't talk about because it's expected to "just work". > So unless the new Clearlooks has fundamentally changed the way any > controls look or behave, it's probably just a case of filing regular bug > reports about anything irksome. Nonetheless, the UI freeze and announcement period are there, at least in part, there for the documentation team. In fact, the announcement period was explicitly requested by me, for the documentation team, a few release cycles back. Changing the look of standard widgets affects every single screenshot in every piece of documentation, core Gnome or otherwise. And that also means every translation of every piece of documentation. That's a lot of pixels. Having said that, we should be extremely careful about how much we change the default look each release cycle. The world doesn't revolve around our release schedule, and we can't expect everybody to retake all their screenshots just because we decided we, for this six months, we'd like some more blue, or a different style of icons. Let's look at Apple. With every release (which are nowhere near as frequent as ours), they have refined the interface. The ribbing got less ribbed, the tones got more subdued. But it was all very gradual. Now, six months ago, we made a radical change in our default look by adopting the old Clearlooks. I'm not criticizing that move. In fact, I believe it was me that made the final decision. It had to be done. If anything, it helped foster consistency. Our old theme was so ugly that all the major vendors changes it. And, of course, they all used their own default theme in their own documentation. And then various other people producing various other software used whatever theme they happened to like. With Clearlooks, we produced something that at least some of the vendors could converge on, meaning the documentation produced by those vendors could look the same. And I'd like to think that that caused some of the independents to do the same thing. So, in that case, a radical change was needed. The ups far outweighed the downs. But that does not mean that radical changes are always good. Every few years, maybe. Every few months, absolutely not. We can make gradual changes, though. But once we've made a stable release, the cat's out of the bag. We can't go back, we must only go forward with what we've got. Right now, we've only put this look into our betas. We can still change it. It will have an impact on people, to be sure, but it can be done. Once we put 2.14.0 out, we're stuck with what we've got. So we better be damn sure we like what we're doing. -- Shaun ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, Ross Burton wrote: > Date: Wed, 08 Feb 2006 18:10:42 + > From: Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Alan Horkan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "desktop-devel-list@gnome.org" > Subject: Re: UI Review > > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 17:36 +, Alan Horkan wrote: > > > I'd appreciate raving hordes of UI-zealots attacking Sound Juicer with > > > its new (well, from 2.12) playback mode, if only so that I can ignore > > > most of the feedback. > > > > Sound Juicer was a great ripper. > > Sound Juicer was not a music player. > > > > Now Sound Juicer is a ripper which can also preview/playback the tracks. > > > > You claims about using Sound Juicer as a music player is where much of > > the criticism came from. > > > > Sound Juicer can be used as a music player if you really want but it is > > not as well suited for that task. > > > > The criticism was hardly an attack by raving hordes. > > Whoa, I needed some smilies in there. I assumed a certian amount of sarcasm but I also recognise that you disagree with much of the criticsm which of course you are entitled to do. In that context the comment about ignoring the feedback sounded a little too close to the truth to be funny. > I totally appreciate the criticism that the usability list gave, and > would like some more of it. "Raving hordes" was meant to be a humorous > comment, and was not intended in a negative way. Sorry for misinterpreting your comments. - Alan H. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 17:36 +, Alan Horkan wrote: > > I'd appreciate raving hordes of UI-zealots attacking Sound Juicer with > > its new (well, from 2.12) playback mode, if only so that I can ignore > > most of the feedback. > > Sound Juicer was a great ripper. > Sound Juicer was not a music player. > > Now Sound Juicer is a ripper which can also preview/playback the tracks. > > You claims about using Sound Juicer as a music player is where much of > the criticism came from. > > Sound Juicer can be used as a music player if you really want but it is > not as well suited for that task. > > The criticism was hardly an attack by raving hordes. Whoa, I needed some smilies in there. I totally appreciate the criticism that the usability list gave, and would like some more of it. "Raving hordes" was meant to be a humorous comment, and was not intended in a negative way. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Ross Burton wrote: > Date: Tue, 07 Feb 2006 15:28:33 + > From: Ross Burton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Cc: "desktop-devel-list@gnome.org" > Subject: Re: UI Review > > On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 15:17 +, Calum Benson wrote: > > I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, > > does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the > > HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to > > bother? :) > > I'd appreciate raving hordes of UI-zealots attacking Sound Juicer with > its new (well, from 2.12) playback mode, if only so that I can ignore > most of the feedback. Sound Juicer was a great ripper. Sound Juicer was not a music player. Now Sound Juicer is a ripper which can also preview/playback the tracks. You claims about using Sound Juicer as a music player is where much of the criticism came from. Sound Juicer can be used as a music player if you really want but it is not as well suited for that task. The criticism was hardly an attack by raving hordes. Sincerely Alan Horkan http://advogato.org/person/AlanHorkan/ ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Thu, 2006-02-09 at 00:07 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote: > If we're going with the new Clearlooks, does that need any sort of > UI or a11y review? I know that there have been sweeping changes. > There is a lot more blue. Theme changes, even to the default theme, haven't historically come under the banner of UI reviews, as they generally implement the stuff that the HIG doesn't talk about because it's expected to "just work". So unless the new Clearlooks has fundamentally changed the way any controls look or behave, it's probably just a case of filing regular bug reports about anything irksome. I agree it would be useful to cast an accessibility eye over it though, to make sure that things like focus indicators still work right, and that labels are contrasty enough to be legible for the vast majority of users. As Thomas said, though, let's take that to the gnome-themes list. Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
Davyd Madeley wrote: On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:41:16PM +, Calum Benson wrote: On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 08:56 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: Just wanted to say, Calum (and perhaps others listening in) that I firmly believe that, done right, the UI reviews can be very, very useful. It is clear that we're not doing it very well, though- perhaps it needs to be more proactive, and earlier in the cycle? If we're going with the new Clearlooks, does that need any sort of UI or a11y review? I know that there have been sweeping changes. There is a lot more blue. Looking at what appears to be the default new-Clearlooks: there are some highly visual changes that perhaps we should reconsider (I feel that sweeping change from release to a release is a bad thing). I have not talked to any of the Clearlooks guys yet, but was it planned to make the theme looks more like it did last release (with nice gradients) or to keep it the way it is? There has been a general objection to the new 'glossy' look, and it would be possible to revert it. However, I haven't done so since I thought we were in the UI freeze, and changes to the default theme would probably not be welcome unless they where major usability issues or such like. I would really welcome more input from people on this subject - but please, on the correct list! If you'd like to discuss theme issues, please do so on gnome-themes-list. I would be glad if we had a few usability people on the list too. -Thomas ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 02:41:16PM +, Calum Benson wrote: > On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 08:56 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > > > Just wanted to say, Calum (and perhaps others listening in) that I > > firmly believe that, done right, the UI reviews can be very, very > > useful. It is clear that we're not doing it very well, though- perhaps > > it needs to be more proactive, and earlier in the cycle? If we're going with the new Clearlooks, does that need any sort of UI or a11y review? I know that there have been sweeping changes. There is a lot more blue. Looking at what appears to be the default new-Clearlooks: there are some highly visual changes that perhaps we should reconsider (I feel that sweeping change from release to a release is a bad thing). I have not talked to any of the Clearlooks guys yet, but was it planned to make the theme looks more like it did last release (with nice gradients) or to keep it the way it is? --d -- Davyd Madeley http://www.davyd.id.au/ 08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118 C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Wed, 2006-02-08 at 08:56 -0500, Luis Villa wrote: > Just wanted to say, Calum (and perhaps others listening in) that I > firmly believe that, done right, the UI reviews can be very, very > useful. It is clear that we're not doing it very well, though- perhaps > it needs to be more proactive, and earlier in the cycle? Yeah, that's totally what Bryan was advocating a couple of releases ago, which is why we didn't really do one at the end of the release last time. Since he and Seth seem to have lost their mailing list voices recently though, we've kind of dropped the ball and done it at neither end this time :/ Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On 2/8/06, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 10:25 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > > On 2/7/06, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Uh, we're just over a week *past* UI freeze. ;-) > > > > > > I know, but didn't we always do UI reviews after the freeze, with > > > > s/the freeze/a freeze/ > > > > > maintainers having special release team dispensation to change stuff > > > after that that the UI review recommended? > > > > Yes, but didn't we used to have a soft UI freeze + a hard UI freeze, > > with the UI review coming in between? (e.g. see > > http://www.gnome.org/start/2.5/). We're almost to the time of what > > would have been the hard UI freeze in such a schedule. > > > > Anyway, I think it'd make sense to probably approve stuff that was > > changed in response to UI review recommendation, if done soon, but > > given that it is later in the release cycle we do need to weigh it > > against possible work caused to the documentation or release notes > > writers as well as possibility for instability if the changes are not > > small. So, I'd probably lean towards approving such stuff, but I > > think it's too late to give blanket approval to changes made in > > response to UI review at this point. > > Ok, well... what I'd suggest then is that we[1] maybe try and do a UI > review of the components whose maintainers have expressed an interest in > being reviewed (or who express such an interest in the next day or two), > and just seek approval for those changes. And then do it properly again > next time :) Just wanted to say, Calum (and perhaps others listening in) that I firmly believe that, done right, the UI reviews can be very, very useful. It is clear that we're not doing it very well, though- perhaps it needs to be more proactive, and earlier in the cycle? I'm not sure exactly what an ideal process would look like, but it is clear that we need one- this is really critical, important, sadly vasty underappreciated work. Luis ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 10:25 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 2/7/06, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Uh, we're just over a week *past* UI freeze. ;-) > > > > I know, but didn't we always do UI reviews after the freeze, with > > s/the freeze/a freeze/ > > > maintainers having special release team dispensation to change stuff > > after that that the UI review recommended? > > Yes, but didn't we used to have a soft UI freeze + a hard UI freeze, > with the UI review coming in between? (e.g. see > http://www.gnome.org/start/2.5/). We're almost to the time of what > would have been the hard UI freeze in such a schedule. > > Anyway, I think it'd make sense to probably approve stuff that was > changed in response to UI review recommendation, if done soon, but > given that it is later in the release cycle we do need to weigh it > against possible work caused to the documentation or release notes > writers as well as possibility for instability if the changes are not > small. So, I'd probably lean towards approving such stuff, but I > think it's too late to give blanket approval to changes made in > response to UI review at this point. Ok, well... what I'd suggest then is that we[1] maybe try and do a UI review of the components whose maintainers have expressed an interest in being reviewed (or who express such an interest in the next day or two), and just seek approval for those changes. And then do it properly again next time :) Cheeri, Calum. [1] Or possibly just me, if nobody else is particularly interested... -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On 2/7/06, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Uh, we're just over a week *past* UI freeze. ;-) > > I know, but didn't we always do UI reviews after the freeze, with s/the freeze/a freeze/ > maintainers having special release team dispensation to change stuff > after that that the UI review recommended? Yes, but didn't we used to have a soft UI freeze + a hard UI freeze, with the UI review coming in between? (e.g. see http://www.gnome.org/start/2.5/). We're almost to the time of what would have been the hard UI freeze in such a schedule. Anyway, I think it'd make sense to probably approve stuff that was changed in response to UI review recommendation, if done soon, but given that it is later in the release cycle we do need to weigh it against possible work caused to the documentation or release notes writers as well as possibility for instability if the changes are not small. So, I'd probably lean towards approving such stuff, but I think it's too late to give blanket approval to changes made in response to UI review at this point. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 09:44 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote: > On 2/7/06, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hey, > > > > On Tue, February 7, 2006 16:17, Calum Benson wrote: > > > I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, > > > does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the > > > HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to > > > bother? :) > > > > A UI review will of course be welcome :-) We're nearing UI freeze, though, > > but it might be a good idea to work do it soon so we can fix things for > > 2.16 ;-) > > Uh, we're just over a week *past* UI freeze. ;-) I know, but didn't we always do UI reviews after the freeze, with maintainers having special release team dispensation to change stuff after that that the UI review recommended? Cheeri, Calum. -- CALUM BENSON, Usability Engineer Sun Microsystems Ireland mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]Java Desktop System Group http://ie.sun.com +353 1 819 9771 Any opinions are personal and not necessarily those of Sun Microsystems ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On 2/7/06, Vincent Untz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hey, > > On Tue, February 7, 2006 16:17, Calum Benson wrote: > > I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, > > does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the > > HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to > > bother? :) > > A UI review will of course be welcome :-) We're nearing UI freeze, though, > but it might be a good idea to work do it soon so we can fix things for > 2.16 ;-) Uh, we're just over a week *past* UI freeze. ;-) So yeah, most stuff would probably have to wait for 2.16 (though there might be things from usability feedback that wouldn't cause problems to documentation or release notes writers and wouldn't likely to destabilize things, which might be able to make it in 2.14...) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On 2/7/06, Calum Benson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, > does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the > HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to > bother? :) I'd appreciate usability feedback in response to http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=321905#c50 (which happened to be in response to earlier feedback -- thanks!) ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
Hey, On Tue, February 7, 2006 16:17, Calum Benson wrote: > I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, > does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the > HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to > bother? :) A UI review will of course be welcome :-) We're nearing UI freeze, though, but it might be a good idea to work do it soon so we can fix things for 2.16 ;-) Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Re: UI Review
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 15:17 +, Calum Benson wrote: > I'll probably regret asking this, but since we didn't do one for 2.12, > does anyone think it would be worthwhile doing one for 2.14? Or is the > HIG so ingrained in everyone's minds now that we don't need to > bother? :) I'd appreciate raving hordes of UI-zealots attacking Sound Juicer with its new (well, from 2.12) playback mode, if only so that I can ignore most of the feedback. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
