| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| dev:system-wide-settings:solution-discussion [2010/03/06 23:53] – mdg | dev:system-wide-settings:solution-discussion [2010/10/02 17:26] (current) – external edit 127.0.0.1 |
|---|
| > While I think it will probably be easier to find some settings when they are grouped in things like hardware and desktop, if these all become tabs that would take away from some of the nice-ness the current icon-based settings manager. | > While I think it will probably be easier to find some settings when they are grouped in things like hardware and desktop, if these all become tabs that would take away from some of the nice-ness the current icon-based settings manager. |
| > Grouping by kind rather than module is good, but grouping most of the settings into 'desktop' and 'hardware' might be a little too much grouping. I would separate things into somewhat more specific top-level categories: mouse, keyboard, display, desktop, theme/style. My personal opinion is don't reduce the number of groups. Something like a max of 26 settings icons in the settings manager would probably be about max, and something like 12 would be minimum. | > Grouping by kind rather than module is good, but grouping most of the settings into 'desktop' and 'hardware' might be a little too much grouping. I would separate things into somewhat more specific top-level categories: mouse, keyboard, display, desktop, theme/style. My personal opinion is don't reduce the number of groups. Something like a max of 26 settings icons in the settings manager would probably be about max, and something like 12 would be minimum. |
| > However, if people generally have a lot of settings icons to look through, I can see it making sense to group things into generic categories like 'hardware' and 'desktop/appearance.' But I don't think the gtk notebook would be the best way to do that. | |
| | \\ |
| | >Is a notebook widget the only option? Without that info, I'm not sure how to comment on that point. |
| | > |
| | >However, I can address the point about modules. As I understand it, the meaning behind the use of the term "module" is a program that has no GUI and performs a particular task under the DE. The Settings Manager is their front end or GUI. I can find no need for any type of modules that are needing any type of visualization on their own. Therefore, there is no need for any reworking of any kind. They simply loose their existing UI's as completely redundant. This is the whole point of the suggestion. There is only one UI. Since others do it, there is no reason that Xfce can't do likewise. |
| | > |
| | >The whole point of "unique" UI's is counter-productive because it adds unnecessary confusion, as well as overhead. Worse, I can't find anything in their design that helps me understand what they do. - KitchM |
| | \\ |
| | >> |
| | >>It is always tough to say how things could be put together. We are told by the developers that they use Glade Interface Designer, so everyone is free to see what layouts they can come up with as they design their own suggested arrangements of widgets. I also like the prettiness of icons, but they can exist on tabs just as easily, although a little smaller. They should not be the an impediment to usability. |
| | >> |
| | >>The categories are parially listed on other pages here. There's a lot more than just Display and Hardware. - KitchM |
| |
| ====Separation of Application Settings==== | ====Separation of Application Settings==== |
| |
| mdg: | mdg: |
| Side note: The settings in "Appearance-Settings Tab" don't really seem panel related to me. (Is this how you discuss things in a wiki?) | > Side note: The settings in "Appearance-Settings Tab" don't really seem panel related to me. (Is this how you discuss things in a wiki?) |
| | > |
| "Preferred Applications" - I think you are right it needs to be expanded. But just a thought - how does this relate to mime types and the applications that can open them, and the final xdg decision on which application opens them? But it may be handy to duplicate that option here. (The natural place for it seems to be in the file manager: file properties.) | > "Preferred Applications" - I think you are right it needs to be expanded. But just a thought - how does this relate to mime types and the applications that can open them, and the final xdg decision on which application opens them? But it may be handy to duplicate that option here. (The natural place for it seems to be in the file manager: file properties.) |
| | >>\\ |
| | >>I agree. There is some lack of intuitive application to the settings. The user can be mislead into believe one particular thing is being changed when it is actually something else. |
| | >> |
| | >>(By the way, you're doing fine. This is not the best wiki engine, so I think you've made the best of it.) |
| | >> |
| | >>The issue of mime types is something that should be handled at the DE level in such a way that all applications know what is what. That is not being done now. This is most definately not a file manager issue; it is an environmental issue. That one confusion is what causes so much trouble. A file manager, on the other hand, is an application which interfaces directly with the OS-level connection to the file-system. Entirely different and separate. - KitchM |