[Sugar-devel] Putting stuff in the control panel vs. the frame
Hi all, looking at some of ParaguayEduca's latest builds I saw that they have added some new icons / features to the frame (e.g. CPU / memory consumption, accessibility, touchpad-mode, etc.) I talked to Bernie about this and we realized that there currently doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what kind of features should go into the frame and which ones into the control panel. One could easily argue that some sparsely populated CP options could be removed and the options instead added to the corresponding frame devices (particularly power and network options come to mind here). Or on the contrary that things like the touchpad-mode should be accessed from within the CP rather than the frame. Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought about this issue. Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, olpcnews url: www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Putting stuff in the control panel vs. the frame
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 17:51, Christoph Derndorfer christoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, looking at some of ParaguayEduca's latest builds I saw that they have added some new icons / features to the frame (e.g. CPU / memory consumption, accessibility, touchpad-mode, etc.) I talked to Bernie about this and we realized that there currently doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what kind of features should go into the frame and which ones into the control panel. One could easily argue that some sparsely populated CP options could be removed and the options instead added to the corresponding frame devices (particularly power and network options come to mind here). Or on the contrary that things like the touchpad-mode should be accessed from within the CP rather than the frame. Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought about this issue. Thanks a lot for thinking of these issues. If I remember correctly, the initial idea was to have all the configuration stuff inside the CP and having links from other parts of the shell to these options. Part of the rationale is that the CP's UI scales quite a bit in terms of space and is Advanced stuff, so if people need to access it early and often, we have some problem to solve in the generic UX. Regards, Tomeu Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, olpcnews url: www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Putting stuff in the control panel vs. the frame
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Christoph Derndorfer christoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, looking at some of ParaguayEduca's latest builds I saw that they have added some new icons / features to the frame (e.g. CPU / memory consumption, accessibility, touchpad-mode, etc.) I talked to Bernie about this and we realized that there currently doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what kind of features should go into the frame and which ones into the control panel. One could easily argue that some sparsely populated CP options could be removed and the options instead added to the corresponding frame devices (particularly power and network options come to mind here). Or on the contrary that things like the touchpad-mode should be accessed from within the CP rather than the frame. Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought about this issue. I think that the dominant factor in the choice of what to show should be the frequency with which the information or controls are used. If a setting is changed frequently by a child within a single session it's a good candidate for a device icon in the Frame. If the setting is, more often than not, set and then forgotten it should exist only within the Control Panel, where it won't distract from more important information and controls. I also agree with the idea Tomeu brought up; I think linking to the corresponding section of the Contol Panel from any devices that have additional settings makes a lot of sense. Eben Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, olpcnews url: www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Putting stuff in the control panel vs. the frame
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Eben Eliason eben.elia...@gmail.com wrote: I think that the dominant factor in the choice of what to show should be the frequency with which the information or controls are used. If a setting is changed frequently by a child within a single session it's a good candidate for a device icon in the Frame. If the setting is, more often than not, set and then forgotten it should exist only within the Control Panel, where it won't distract from more important information and controls. Very clear criteria. +100 from my side. Also -- anything that is a workaround for bugs/limitations. I also agree with the idea Tomeu brought up; I think linking to the corresponding section of the Contol Panel from any devices that have additional settings makes a lot of sense. Yep - +1 on this too. m -- martin.langh...@gmail.com mar...@laptop.org -- School Server Architect - ask interesting questions - don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first - http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
Re: [Sugar-devel] Putting stuff in the control panel vs. the frame
On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Eben Eliason eben.elia...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Aug 3, 2010 at 11:51 AM, Christoph Derndorfer christoph.derndor...@gmail.com wrote: Hi all, looking at some of ParaguayEduca's latest builds I saw that they have added some new icons / features to the frame (e.g. CPU / memory consumption, accessibility, touchpad-mode, etc.) I talked to Bernie about this and we realized that there currently doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on what kind of features should go into the frame and which ones into the control panel. One could easily argue that some sparsely populated CP options could be removed and the options instead added to the corresponding frame devices (particularly power and network options come to mind here). Or on the contrary that things like the touchpad-mode should be accessed from within the CP rather than the frame. Anyway, I was wondering what people here thought about this issue. I think that the dominant factor in the choice of what to show should be the frequency with which the information or controls are used. If a setting is changed frequently by a child within a single session it's a good candidate for a device icon in the Frame. If the setting is, more often than not, set and then forgotten it should exist only within the Control Panel, where it won't distract from more important information and controls. Perfect, that makes a lot of sense. I also agree with the idea Tomeu brought up; I think linking to the corresponding section of the Contol Panel from any devices that have additional settings makes a lot of sense. So you mean that the battery or wifi devices in the frame would have an extra options item in the palette that would jump to the corresponding option-page in the CP? Thanks for the quick and clear answers! :-) Cheers, Christoph -- Christoph Derndorfer co-editor, olpcnews url: www.olpcnews.com e-mail: christ...@olpcnews.com ___ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
