On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:58:06PM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote: > On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In a perfect world, you would be right. But that doesn't seem to be > > the world we are living in, because so many apps seem to need a banner > > while they launch (openoffice, gimp, banshee, etc.). > > > > I'm not 100% sure that we need such a strong feedback during > > launching, but just saying that we'll make everything fast enough and > > slow activities won't bite us is a bit courageous, at least.
While "perfect" may be the enemy of "good", I do not believe that the present state of mediocrity is either inevitable or "good enough". However, I'm not presently submitting patches, so what do I know? > * It reinforces the zoom metaphor. Perhaps the implementation will convince me. Luckily for you, I'm not the UI designer. :) > * It deals with the problem of children clicking on 2-3 activities at > the same time, which proved to be a real issue in the field (will > faster activities address this? not sure). If you actually want to rate limit activity startup - why not just rate limit activity startup, perhaps with a "cooldown" effect? Instead, if you want to make it clear that people should be using one activity at a time, why not queue up launch requests and allow cancellation of all items in the queue? > I'm still worried that the feedback might be too strong and > unfortunately it's something hard to test until we have activity > starting in 1.5 for real. If we had an acceptable form of feedback in > the current builds I'd propose to first make activities faster and > then play with feedback. Unfortunately, after the redesign, I don't > think that's the case. Write yourself a trivial activity that starts xterm and see how long it takes to run. (I used the gtk hello world entries, way back when.) Michael _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
