Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2012 Archives by date, by thread · List index


I'm inclined to disagree with your use of some of those examples.  While
some of the changes made to Gnome particularly make it work better on touch
devices, those devices make up a very small portion of the devices upon
which it is being used so changes such as the enlarged icons, enlarged
title bar and enlarged menu bar don't make too much sense when considering
the market niche in which they are in.  Likewise many would say that
Microsoft ditching a nice looking, usable and relatively intuitive platform
such as its classic desktop with Aero for a gaudily coloured, non-intuitive
on a normal computer workstation environment like Metro was a terrible
decision that might prove to be a worse than the Vista debacle.

On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 12:01 AM, Mirek M. <mazelm@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Astron,

On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 2:48 PM, Stefan Knorr
<heinzlesspam@googlemail.com>wrote:

Hi all,

hrm... this voting is quite clear: currently it is at 26:11:2
(opaque:partly opaque:transparent).
There are two factors that work against the transparency:
* Mirek didn't pick the ideal screenshot to illustrate transparency (my
view, feel free to disagree)


I just took Kendy's shot and made "File" and "Edit" more visible.
Feel free to make your own mockup (based on Kendy's shot) -- we can have
another poll comparing that to the winner of this poll.


* Some people might just be very change-averse


Please don't use the label "change-averse" -- it's increasingly used to
justify bad design in spite of consumer backlash. The only time changes are
worth carrying out in spite of negative consumer response are when a) these
changes allow the software to evolve in the interest of better usability
(such as Ubuntu's, Gnome's, and Microsoft's changes to make their software
work well for touch devices), b) these changes make the software more
logical/consistent (such as Chrome putting tabs on top or Microsoft
ditching Aero for Metro on the desktop).

The proposed menubar change is neither of these -- it's purely a cosmetic
change, and therefore usability and consumer opinion count most. In terms
of usability, a white background behind the menu bar items would be best
(whether we go for a "tab" look or a "full bar" look).


There are two factors of which I have no idea how they factor in:
* The people on the G+ page are probably generally rather techy and
design-interested, but it can't be said to be representative
* It's just screenshots/mockups, nothin with which people can interact

Still, I guess, the figures would not change too much even with all
factors taken into account (IANAP*, though). How much we want to honour
this voting, I don't know...
At this point, would it be safer to go back to one of Mirek's earlier
mock-ups (at least for 3.6), then?

Astron.


--
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-
unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be
deleted




-- 
Sean White,
Within Temptation - Your Argument Is Invalid

-- 
Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to design+help@global.libreoffice.org
Problems? http://www.libreoffice.org/get-help/mailing-lists/how-to-unsubscribe/
Posting guidelines + more: http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Netiquette
List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/global/design/
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted

Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.