Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus
For those who are interested in where Ubuntu plans to go with its user
interface innovations: Mark Shuttleworth has posted a writeup on indicator
menus, which will provide persistent state information to users.
"We will place all indicators at the top right of the screen. We'll
place them in a particular order, too, with the 'most fundamental'
indicator, which controls the overall session, in the top right. The order
will not be random, but predictable between sessions and screen
sizes. There will be no GUI support for users to reorder the
indicators." The current plan is to do (and ship) the work, then
try to get GNOME and KDE to accept it.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 21, 2010 19:50 UTC (Wed) by dfsmith (guest, #20302) [Link]
My phone places indicators in a fixed order in the top right of the screen and it works nicely.
But, in a windowed environment (i.e., not my phone) I like my windows
near the top and indicators down at the bottom where they're not
intrusive on my current tasks. (E.g., that darn email flag keeps going
up---I want it, but only when I'm "context switching".)
Different work idioms -> different indicator places.
I'd like to see the user experience research that Ubuntu is using to show that I'm in the minority here....
User Experience Research Posted Apr 21, 2010 21:31 UTC (Wed) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] I recall that from time-to-time there have been invitations for people willing to take part in testing sessions; eg. recently: To actively contribute to these testing sessions might be a way to guarantee that your experiences are included in the results of future relevant "user experience research" tests. These invitations appear to be primarily aimed at people in the United Kingdom—those able to easily travel to Canonical's Headquarters at Millbank (next to the River Thames in London)—but I suspect that emailed comments would be equally welcomed aswell!
User Experience Research Posted Apr 22, 2010 9:38 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Millbank? I'm used to seeing *that* name only in the Private Eye. Did Mark buy the Labour spin-doctors central or something? :)
User Experience Research Posted Apr 22, 2010 10:10 UTC (Thu) by AlexHudson (subscriber, #41828) [Link]
Labour only had the basement and moved out in 2002 - time to update your Eye collection methinks?
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 21, 2010 20:00 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
How does this fit into GNOME 3's design roadmap, specifically gnome
shell? It's not clear to me that this work fits in. He's put a
timeline of 2012 before this is fully baked. Can you really wait that
long before pushing it to upstream projects and have it be relevant to
their design roadmaps?
There's been some public discussion about libappindicator in the gnome
mailinglists when it was proposed as an external module dep... but even
that didn't give a clear picture on how this work is going to be
integrated into Gnome 3.
Was libappindicator and the work going on their brought up in the Gnome
usability hackfest that Canonical partly sponsored? I don't remember
seeing anyone talking about it in the context of that hackfest...that
strikes me as odd. Putting everyone in the room to talk about where
upstream is going and then failing to have a discussion about your own
in house developments that you want to see upstream adopt.
-jef
GNOME Shell Posted Apr 21, 2010 21:54 UTC (Wed) by sladen (subscriber, #27402) [Link] I'm unsure regarding GNOME Shell specifically; but recall that Ubuntu's entire six-month release timeline is tied to that of GNOME. The following interview is long but I found it interesting to listen to; at one point: Ivanka Majic (Canonical's Design Team Lead) notes that Canonical employs the author of GNOME Docky; so the gulf between where time/money appears to be being spent and GNOME upstream maybe smaller than imagined.
GNOME Shell Posted Apr 21, 2010 22:14 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Please correct me if I'm wrong... but neither Docky nor Gnome-Do have
been accepted as official gnome components or even as external
dependencies under the definition of the Gnome desktop as defined by the
Gnome Project.
To my understanding neither gnome-do nor docky have been proposed for
inclusion into the GNOME desktop in this round of module proposals even
though I've seen some sidebar discussion around such a proposal.
gnome-do which docky depends on overlaps with gnome-shell, so again,
just like with libappindicate its not clear how docky/gnome-do integrate
with the Gnome 3.0 roadmap.
What I see happening is that Canonical is intent on creating a
differentiated desktop environment that is distinct from what the GNOME
upstream project is doing. And that's fine and dandy... but how much
differentiation can they do and still claim its a GNOME desktop? Its
one thing to add optional components that extend the GNOME desktop. Its
quite another to deliberately remove components that are part of the
GNOME platform and tell application writers they cannot rely on that
standard GNOME functionality to be present. And that's what they are
doing with the notification tray removal.
-jef
GNOME Shell Posted Apr 22, 2010 16:05 UTC (Thu) by drag (subscriber, #31333) [Link]
Well I don't think that Gnome has really had that hard and fast rules to what is 'Gnome' or not.
Only so much what is in the default Gnome.
Just because people almost never ship what is in the default Gnome
setup. The most common modifications are to use Firefox instead of
Epiphany and add on OpenOffice.org, but there are lots of other mods
people do. Themes, configuration tools, default configurations of gnome
applications.
And I have not seen any Gnome devs complaining about or anything. At
least nothing beyond ignoring pathes for PA and breaking it with bad
configurations and such, or occasional input into things like the
'Ubuntu Button Placement' drama.
That and they occasionally bring back in mods and add-ons into to the
project's default installs. The biggest example is Novell's Gnome C#
support and Tomboy.
That and they have support for lots of things that are not part of the
default install. Like all the other language bindings besides C, Python,
and C#.
So i don't think that Ubuntu is doing anything weird or unusual here.
Maybe they could be working closer with upstream, or maybe not. I don't
know, but the most important thing that Ubuntu can do is get it done and
out there as quickly as possible so that they can get lots of feedback.
GNOME Shell Posted Apr 22, 2010 16:12 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
It's one thing to replace default gnome applications with others put to
leave the gnome application as optional. Like when firefox replaced
epiphany. Does such a switch really impact application developers who
are writing to the specifications set down by the gnome project? No.
It's quite another to tell developers point blank that a framework
component like the notification area won't be included at all for users
to optionally put back on their gnome panel even its its not there by
default and they they must adapt to the unilateral decision making of
Canonical regardless of what the GNOME project has defined as its
development framework.
-jef
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 1:34 UTC (Thu) by Lukehasnoname (guest, #65152) [Link]
From my reading of "GNOME 3 Myths" http://live.gnome.org/GNOME3Myths, Gnome 2 functionality will be perfectly present.
Someone (or some distro) that wants to run a Window and Panel environment as it exists in Gnome 2 is free to do so.
That still leaves the discussion of how Canonical is telling developers
not to rely on the notification area when it is still the default
mechanism in Gnome.
Are developers able to get their applications working in the application indicator currently?
In any case, Ubuntu's quasi-official intro to the topic is here:
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 21, 2010 21:22 UTC (Wed) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
http://design.canonical.com/2010/04/notification-area/
"Our roadmap is that in Ubuntu 11.04, one year from now, there will be
no notification area. And in Ubuntu Netbook Edition, we’ll remove it
even earlier, in 10.10. So if you develop an application that uses the
notification area, and you want the millions of Ubuntu users to be able
to use it, now is the time to change it."
So there you have it. Before even having libappindicator being blessed
as an external dep for the GNOME component, they are telling application
developers they can no longer depend on a standard gnome component
being available in Ubuntu's version of GNOME desktop.
And to boot, they are using the estimated userbase size to strong arm
developers into doing it there way..instead of using the standard GNOME
upstream functionality. An estimate they REFUSE to provide a publicly
stated methodology for.
Yippie for a commitment to upstream collaboration.
-jef
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 21, 2010 23:40 UTC (Wed) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
Jef,
having something on the roadmap for a year out doesn't mean that it will absolutly happen.
now if you were to say that libappindicator was hitting heavy opposition
or had been rejected from the GNOME project, then you may have a case
to make.
but if it's in the process and just hasn't yet received final blessing,
but looks like it's on track to get it, then planning that in a year it
will be blessed and they intend to use it as their standard seems very
reasonable.
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 22, 2010 0:02 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Have you read the public discussion in the gnome-desktop-list archives
over the proposal? I have. I certainly will not handicap how the vote
for inclusion will go because I'm not a mind reader. But I have my
concerns.
I'll reiterate just one of the concerns in the discussion I saw. How
does this fit into the gnome 3 roadmap? I haven't seen an answer to
that question that seems to be satisfactory to anyone. Not in the gnome
desktop-devel-list, not in gnome-shell-list not in the ayatana list,
not in the gtk+ list. Without a solid answer to that question does a
vote for inclusion make sense?
-jef
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 22, 2010 0:23 UTC (Thu) by dlang (subscriber, #313) [Link]
no, I am not subscribed to every mailing list for opensource projects
(the kernel mailing list keeps me in reading material by itself ;-)
but nothing in your prior post indicated if there were problems with
that or not, just that that library had not yet been accepted.
people were complaining that they weren't talking about what they were
planning, now they give their plans for a year out and your are
complaining that not all of the things that they will need to do in the
meantime have been completed.
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 22, 2010 1:04 UTC (Thu) by ewan (subscriber, #5533) [Link] but nothing in your prior post indicated if there were problems with that or not, just that that library had not yet been accepted.I'd have thought the chief concern wouldn't be that Ubuntu may use a component that isn't a part of standard Gnome (and KDE) but that they are trying to encourage developers to avoid a cross desktop standard component that is. Aside from the effect on their own desktop, if successful that effort threatens to reduce the use of a very nice standard for everyone else.
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 22, 2010 13:56 UTC (Thu) by bkor (guest, #27950) [Link] Without a solid answer to that question does a vote for inclusion make sense?The lack of integration with gnome-shell was raised by me (release team member). If there is no plan, there is only one way the release team will vote regarding the inclusion.
Follow up: Ubuntu looking to get rid of notification tray in a year. Posted Apr 22, 2010 16:44 UTC (Thu) by jspaleta (subscriber, #50639) [Link]
Was libappindicator specifically discussed at the Usability hackfest
that Canonical partly sponsored as a candidate technology to integrate
with gnome-shell?
That seems like the obvious face-to-face opportunity to hold that
discussion.. and yet I've seen no communication from any one in
attendance that suggested app indicator implementation that Canonical is
working on right now was talked about in the scope of GNOME 3
design...at all. Among all the posts about task pooper, nothing about
libappindicate.
I've read over as much of the post hackfest testimonials that I can
find, and the post-hackfest threads in gnome's gtk+-devel-list and I'm
not seeing it mentioned as a technology brought up for discussion. If
I've missed something relevant to the hackfest discussion that pertains
to libappindicator, please someone point me to a published discussion.
Is there any post-hackfest communication not archived in the references located here:
Anything publicly archived post-hackfest testimonial from a Canonical employee perspective who was in attendance?
-jef
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 6:43 UTC (Thu) by njs (subscriber, #40338) [Link]
Almost all the apps I have in my notification area are there for a
different reason: they should really be applets, but the gnome panel
applet API is weird and annoying, and notification area API is slick,
easy, and portable. Even marquee apps like network manager, pidgin,
etc., can't be bothered to be applets. I know they're fixing some of
these themselves (or rather, moving them to these menus... though I know
I would rather have a few small square applets rather than large text
menus to save screen real estate). But to get buy-in from developers
they might have to provide a migration path for these sorts of apps too
-- presumably by fixing the stupid gnome applet API.
(Or are applets already planned for removal in the brave new world of gnome shell?)
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 8:56 UTC (Thu) by callegar (guest, #16148) [Link]
I truly hope that Gnome and particularly KDE can resist to this change,
because of its complete lack of flexibility. If I read correctly:
1) indicators must go to the top right of the screen no possibility to change it.
If Gnome and KDE accept this, margin for other distros to take different
paths will be minimal and Ubuntu will actually end up imposing its
choices on everybody. As a matter of fact they are already doing so by
telling developers that they must stop relying on the system tray
applets even before Gnome and KDE can take decisions about that.
A first point against the current suggestion for indicators is that on
screens that are much wider than tall, to put things both on the top and
the bottom of the screen is a very poor design choice. The gnome idea
of having two panels, one at the top and one at the bottom of the screen
was nice on the 4X3 screens that were used a few years ago, and can be
nice today on phone screens that have a vertical form factor, but is not
ok for the "panoramic" screens that computers and laptops get today.
Recently I always reconfigure gnome to use a single panel a la KDE,
otherwise on 1024X600 screens there is not enough estate to vertically
display anything. To have 2 20-pixel thick panels is to steal from
applications 7% of your vertical space and screen area.
A second point is that maybe the reason why the "system tray" paradigm
has sticked and the "notification area" has not is that people do not
want a notification area. Maybe they exactly want a "system tray",
namely a single place to quickly check and access system or hardware
related applications that typically live for the same amount of time as
the session itself. It is not a substitute for minimization nor an
inconsistent way to hide windows: such applications are not started as a
window and then actively minimized or hidden. They start automatically
and readily in the system tray form, something that is completely
different from the very start. And no... the possibility to conceal
things in the tray is not like "masking tape so you can cover up
unwanted warning lights". It is much more like the toolbox paradigm.
Ideally one would like to have a toolbox with an infinitely wide
opening, so that when you open it you can see all the tools. But the
opening is limited in size, so what do you do? You put the tools that
you use less on the bottom of the toolbox, so the ones you use more can
be visible at the top.
Finally note that the main argument that ubuntu makes against the system
tray is that programmers have too much freedom to make the many applets
inconsistent. Unfortunately, by the same lines one could say that the
desktop must go because programmers have too much freedom to make the
many applications inconsistent.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 9:41 UTC (Thu) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]
Indicators in the top right is particularly fun because KDE already uses
this location for the desktop's plasmoid control handle (which also
appears unconfigurable: equally annoying).
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 12:04 UTC (Thu) by eugeniy (subscriber, #24280) [Link]
Maybe you are using too old version of KDE. For me that control handle is movable when widgets are unlocked.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 15:32 UTC (Thu) by Lukehasnoname (guest, #65152) [Link]
I'm not sure if he can enforce the 'top right' placement of the app
indicator. I can certainly understand his motives for keeping the order
the same, and the concept of separating 'system level' icons like
battery and wireless from 'application level' icons like music players,
messengers, etc.
I do know this: The envelope icon with the app indicator in Lucid is useless and annoying.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 17:02 UTC (Thu) by RainCT (subscriber, #57473) [Link]
> 1) indicators must go to the top right of the screen no possibility to change it.
> 2) indicators must be in a fixed order, no possibility to change it.
That's a detail of the implementation planned by Canonical, I highly
doubt that the API/specification mentions such stuff at all. Ie., if
Ubuntu ships with an implementation having fixed position and order,
there's nothing stopping people from creating an alternative,
compatible, implementation making this customizable.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 9:55 UTC (Thu) by michaeljt (subscriber, #39183) [Link] I suspect that Ubuntu may be pushing its goodwill bonus a bit with its current design by committee fad. I have been using Ubuntu since 5.10, but if Fedora can really make good on their plans to resist destablising changes I may end up switching in the near future. I think that the thing that keeps Ubuntu safe for now is that it is still the distribution that one can recommend to an innocent person with the best conscience (and I wonder how many of its users installed it themselves, and how many had it foisted upon them by a well-meaning acquaintance). If Fedora starts to fill that space then Ubuntu may find itself treading on thin ice when it upsets people (i.e. those actually doing the installing) like this.
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 19:33 UTC (Thu) by foom (subscriber, #14868) [Link]
What he wants to do sounds very much like what Apple did with its
top-right indicators. It's actually quite nice. Except, it sounds like
Ubuntu is going to try to be a lot more draconian.
Here's a screenshot of the top of my screen:
From right-to-left:
Everything is a menu, except the search on the right: that brings up a text-box when you click on it..
They're also all reorderable, again, except for search, and can be disabled/enabled as I like.
I'll also note that OSX also supports arbitrary application-specific
status applets. Those can actually do whatever the heck they want, for
example,back/play/pause/forward buttons for controlling a music player.
But all the Apple-shipped ones are menus, and mostly small graphic
depictions of the status of something with configuration options for
that thing. Even ones that have text on my menubar can be configured to
be a simple icon. (time -> analog clock, battery charge -> just
the icon).
Ah, writing this brings back fond memories of when Apple just controlled
their platform by setting a good example, instead of draconian approval
policies. Sigh...
Shuttleworth: Ubuntu's Indicator Menus Posted Apr 22, 2010 22:07 UTC (Thu) by j1mc (subscriber, #56848) [Link]
I can see the technical reason for switching away from the notification
area, and I see how it can be difficult to want to do cool things *now*
rather than wait for upstream Gnome to implement what you want, but I
wish they had done more to bring this up at the Usability Hackfest. I
wonder if they brought up the "buttons on the left," at the hackfest,
too. The button situation is another pretty big differentiator between
them and upstream Gnome.
Perhaps these examples can be something to keep in mind for later
Usability Hackfests (e.g., "Ok, Canonical folks, thanks for your input
on items X,Y,Z. Do you have any other changes that you want to get into
upstream Gnome in the next year or so that you want to tell us about?
Let's make sure to discuss those, too.") I'm not sure how Canonical
folks would take to that, as I think they use these changes to
differentiate themselves in the FLOSS marketplace.
|
|||||||||||||
