<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 5:46 PM, Xen <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:list@xenhideout.nl" target="_blank">list@xenhideout.nl</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
<div>
<pre style="white-space:pre-wrap;color:rgb(0,0,0);font-style:normal;font-variant:normal;font-weight:normal;letter-spacing:normal;line-height:normal;text-align:start;text-indent:0px;text-transform:none;word-spacing:0px"><span class="">>><i> On June 23, 2015, 10:40 a.m., Kai Uwe Broulik wrote:
</i>>><i> > I actually really like it, perhaps we should make KDialog passive popup not set an icon by default now
</i>>><i>
</i></span><span class="">>><i> Philipp A. wrote:
</i>>><i> i also like the no-icon no-space version. why add something that just takes up unnecessary space and has no informational value?
</i>
> I prefer the no-icon version as well. I don't think the visual inconsistency is a problem. On the
> contrary, I think reducing the uniformity may somewhat reduce strain when scanning notifications
> since they become more individualized landmarks in the stack. It also makes the presence of icons in
> the notifications that do sport them feel more purposeful, making it more likely to pay attention to
> icons and getting something out of it instead of getting trained to ignore them and look at the only
> reliably disambiguifying content (the text). This way, you look straight at the text - the only
> meaningful content, without having to skip over the icon.
> - Eike</span></pre>
<br>
If I may be allowed to add some opinion here, being just a
bystander...<br>
<br>
Being trained to ignore a default icon is more like an automatism
and it serves in means of recognition. That doesn't mean you have
to pay visual attention to the other icons or that visual
(conscious) attention would be a good thing. Ideally it becomes a
subconscious process anyway.<br>
<br>
Getting a differing spacing (left-side indentation) for no-icon
and do-icon introduces more fatigue. That means perusing the
notification stack becomes a more tiring thing. The informational
value of the icons or of having no icon doesn't add anything much
in terms of "information intake" and most of the notifications...<br>
<br>
Sorry to say so, but my own personal KDE experience has been that
there are way many notifications and most of them don't serve a
good purpose and clearing the notifcation stack becomes a chore.
E.g. Clementine (I don't use Amarok) sends a
play-event/notification to the stack on every item played. It is
pretty senseless to be notified about new songs in a way that long
surpasses what the song is doing. A temporary song, a temporary
item, would better have a temporary notification (such as the
on-screen popup that Amarok does or used to do and that Clementine
perhaps does also (don't remember)). Helpful would be a vertical
stack displayed on-screen where each item has a timer before it
disappears and clears the stack (or reduces the stack size
(vertically, the number of items present on the screen) and
perhaps in conjunction with a permanent history thing. I feel a
large amount of time (relatively speaking) is being dedicated by
the user in clearing that stack. It is one of my gripes in KDE.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>This exact issue is addressed in Plasma 5 - Clementine, Amarok and Spotify by default get only</div><div>one single notification popup which is not stored in history. So if you quickly switch songs and/or</div><div>change states of the playback, there will always be only one popup with always the latest data</div><div>(because the previous data is obsolete by then anyway). Any other application can be added</div><div>to the list by adding it to a config file (not ideal but also not meant to be a public configuration</div><div>at this point).</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
Applications that don't set an icon is also something that ..how
to say. It could be dissuaded and not designed around. I think it
would be a bad thing if your direction would be about "not trying
to get a consistent look" but perhaps that is irrelevant as each
author can decide by him/herself. I just feel a common default
icon would be a boon in terms of looks and the reducement of
visual fatigue as the user only has to look in a default location
for all text (visually space/oriented) and ease of
repetition/recognition is a good thing.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The ease of repetition and recognition was what I had in mind with the first patch, yes.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000"><div>
Lately visual interface designers have for mostly political
reasons I believe done away with the "everything would preferably
be in a default location" concept that has long been the way of
doing menus etcetera. If you can find something blindly, that
increases the speed of your operation of the machine. But recently
(e.g. in Windows start menu etc.) (and the Unity Dock, etc.) <i>searching</i>
has become a more apt way to do things. In Windows it is so bad
that without searching, you can't even find anything. E.g. the
"configuration screen" of Windows 7 and 8 (you can even barely
find it in Windows 10) has been reorganized to the extent that it
is very fatigueing to read any of the text (because it is all very
long) and the only way to get anywhere is usually to search.<br>
<br>
By contrast the KDE menu (Kicker?) is still very doable although
it is not as fast as the Windows XP menu used to be. Searching is
still often an apt way to get somewhere (especially if you don't
know where to look) but at least the results are fast and
pleasantly oriented. A scrolling side-to-side menu is not really a
good way to get anywhere (repeatedly) because every click is a
separate action that requires wait-time before you can do the next
move. In contrast, a cascading/unfolding menu is very rapid
because it is like "one motion" to get anywhere.<br>
<br>
But search always requires mental attention which introduces
fatigue and lowers the speed. Searching is never a trained thing.
Which is why, of course, you can add stuff to Favourites. But
there's not enough space in the favourites to include everything
you want. Which means you get back to clicking on desktop-icons, a
thing the menu tries to avoid or supersede!! Personally I know no
way to organize my favourite applications and I resort to desktop
icons and direct krunner activity.<br>
<br>
But, to recap, familiarity is important, predictability is
important, efficiency is really all that matters, and
informational value of icons is not really all that important (as
long as they look good and are recognisable) (and distinguisable)
as it is a subconscious process anyway. So having a default icon
does not really take away from the recognition of the other icons,
but I deally I would ensure that very few default icons remain
anyway. The default icon could also better be round or square.
Anyway, these are just my thoughts.<br></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I tend to agree with you but I'll leave the final word on this</div><div>particular issue to our Visual Design Group.</div></div><div><br></div><div>Cheers</div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><div><span style="color:rgb(102,102,102)">Martin Klapetek | KDE Developer</span></div></div>
</div></div>