What we need to do is come up with a clear definition of the test we want to preform. We can figure out how t get the right bits in place after that. The variables seem to be new user vs experienced user to test discoverability and the various time-constants for the default delay: perhaps 0, 1/3s, 1/2s, 1s, infinite?
-walter On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:46 AM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Can we set up an actually experiment with some children? Uruguay, >> Paraguay, and Peru all agreed to help. This seems like a obvious place >> to start. > > Yes, that would be helpful as well. In order to make that feasible, > we need to find a good way to let them install builds for testing > purposes. I suspect that Scott might have been considering this use > case when he mentioned breaking the builds into development/unstable, > testing, QA, and stable. Ideally we'd provide a singed testing build > so that the kids don't all need to request dev keys to get us the > proper feedback. Can anyone provide insight onto how/when we might be > able to do this? > > - Eben > > ps I did help Carla get a dev key and install a testing build > including the new activity launching feedback and the control panel, > so that she had at least one machine for testing these features and > the delay on the Frame. > > >> -walter >> >> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Eben Eliason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> I've played with it a lot. I think that a 1/3 second delay goes a >>> long way to preventing accidental activation, but likely isn't long >>> enough to prevent discovery, especially in a classroom full of kids. >>> If everyone tests it out with a delay in this range and agrees, we >>> could institute a delay between 1/3 and 1/2 second by default and >>> probably provide a better out-of-the-box experience. >>> >>> - Eben >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:08 AM, Walter Bender <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> Bert's point is a good one and a further argument for keeping it >>>> configurable. On my XO, the touchpad is flaky but there is a frame >>>> key. On my HP, the touchpad is reasonably stable, but I need to >>>> remember an undiscoverable keyboard binding. So I would like to have >>>> almost opposite behaviors depending upon the hardware. >>>> >>>> -walter >>>> >>>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 6:19 AM, Bert Freudenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>> wrote: >>>>> On 10.06.2008, at 12:15, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> do we have any feedback regarding frame activation and the new control >>>>>> panel option? >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it ok to ship with hot corners on by default and let the users >>>>>> change it if they wish? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> As much as I hate the mouse activation, I still think this is a >>>>> sensible default. On the XO we have a Frame key, but on other hw >>>>> discovering the frame could be a lot harder. >>>>> >>>>> - Bert - >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Sugar mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Sugar mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar >>>> >>> >> > _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
