Attached is a different type of idea for the next / previous track buttons.<br><br>- Lee<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:38 PM, Dan Meltzer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com">parallelgrapefruit@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 12:54 PM, Thomas Lübking <<a href="mailto:thomas.luebking@web.de">thomas.luebking@web.de</a>> wrote:<br>
> I'm no fan of either version :-\<br>
><br>
> - In general this triggers a misuse (users _will_ try to point and click the<br>
> tiny icons (esp. with the second attempt) run a usertest if you don't trust me<br>
> ;-)<br>
><br>
> - Ericos original suggestion somehow "breaks" the horizontal layout.<br>
><br>
> - Both introduce at least one "inverted" "icon next to text" toolbuttons what<br>
> looks weird.<br>
><br>
> - Also this interferes with the drag feature (esp. those sunken icons)<br>
><br>
> If we can skip the hook-arrows, i've attached a mock for a different direction<br>
> (but i think we'd also need to adjust the look of the progress slider to get<br>
> the entire area back less "heavy" - i'f you're interested, i'll implement this<br>
> and seek for a "lighter" slider appearance)<br>
<br>
</div>My objection to this mockup is that it looks more like super stylized<br>
tabs instead of buttons. I would not expect from looking at those<br>
items on screen that I should press them to change the track. I don't<br>
know what I'd expect them to do, but I don't think it improves<br>
anything.<br>
<div class="im">><br>
> Cheers,<br>
> Thomas<br>
><br>
> Am Sunday 31 January 2010 schrieb Mark Kretschmann:<br>
>> On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:46 AM, Edward Hades <<a href="mailto:edward.hades@gmail.com">edward.hades@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>> > On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 11:37 AM, Mark Kretschmann <<a href="mailto:kretschmann@kde.org">kretschmann@kde.org</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>> >> See<br>
>> >> Enrico's attached screenshot, I think it makes a big difference in<br>
>> >> usability and discoverability.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > How about moving arrows outerer?<br>
>><br>
>> This looks nice, but I think it might introduce a subtle ambiguity:<br>
>><br>
>> The arrows appear to point to something at the borders. With Enrico's<br>
>> version, they "pointed at" the actual track that would be played. So I<br>
>> think Enrico's version might be slightly better, usability wise.<br>
>><br>
><br>
><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="h5">> _______________________________________________<br>
> Amarok-devel mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:Amarok-devel@kde.org">Amarok-devel@kde.org</a><br>
> <a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel</a><br>
><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Amarok-devel mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Amarok-devel@kde.org">Amarok-devel@kde.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel" target="_blank">https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br>