Adding widgets to panel?

[Thomas Pfeiffer]

 On Tue, 13 Sep 2011 12:43:06 +0200, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
>>  Let me give an example: On my desktop I usually have a network 
>> traffic
>>  monitor always in sight. The reason for that is that if a web page
>>  seems to take forever to load, I want to know if it does actually 
>> still
>>  load or if it stopped transferring but the browser just hasn't 
>> realized
>>  it yet.
>
> that is a highly technical usage, that i'm not sure describes many 
> people in
> our target groups .. but you're in good company there: i'm totally 
> not the
> target group when it comes to such technical usages either. :)
>
> for me, i'm looking at more "commonly human" traits to satisfy and
> prioritize,
> such as "a living record of my life" or "organizing my work progress" 
> than
> these technical things.

 True, this is a highly technical example. Probably only advanced users 
 care about such stuff.
 Novices would probably just either wait until the page has finished 
 loading or give up at
 some point, but they won't want to find out _why_ it took so long.

> but i'm sure we could also find more "commonly human" traits to 
> create the
> same kind of user story you just offered
>
> so ...
>
> ... it occurs to me that the window strip offers a live preview of 
> windows.
>
> ... and we have the ability to run widgets in a window, essentially a 
> "full
> screen" mode (from the user's interaction POV, not a technical 
> definition at
> the programmatic level)
>
> ... which would allow one to peek at the progress in a nice little 
> thumbnail
> alongside all other windows in the widget strip
>
> ... if we ordered and grouped windows in the window strip using some
> strategy
> like:
>
> [ Home screen ] [ FSP ] [ FSP ] [ App ] [ App ]
>
> where "FSP" == "full screen plasmoid", then we'd get a peek area, 
> great full
> screen interaction when needed/desired and stable locations for them.
>
> they could be launched (as one can already, in fact) from the 
> launcher area
> ...
>
> .. and that means we'd be able to avoid adding any new "top level" UI
> concepts, but instead just re-use the launch and peek concepts to 
> accomodate
> this need.
>
> what do you think?

 That sounds like an excellent idea! Why should users differentiate 
 between
 a widget and an application too much anyway? For a user, they are both
 "things that display stuff and can be interacted with, each with a 
 distinct
 purpose". The distinction between the two types is mostly a technical 
 one anyway.

 Those fullscreen plasmoids need to be carefully designed, though. If we 
 just
 use thumbnails in the window strip, the fullscreen presentation has to 
 be
 designed so that its thumbnail is still readable and always displays 
 the
 important information.
 Or are you thinking about rendering different content in the window 
 strip
 than on the fullscreen plasmoid itself (comparable to "plasmoid on the
 desktop vs. plasmoid on the panel" on Plasma Desktop)? This would offer
 more flexibility and better-suited content for each "mode", of course.

 This would reduce the number of actions needed to peek at the
 plasmoid to one, while still keeping the panel as such clean. So yes,
 I really like that :)

>>  I would replace can/should with "have to". The "... and listen to 
>> your
>>  customers"
>>  part of the "release early, release often" philosophy (although I'd
>>  strongly
>>  prefer "... and observe your customers using the product" whenever
>>  possible)
>>  is crucial.
>
> the real trick we face here is making sure we are able to not put too 
> much
> weight on the actual recommendations our users give us (which will be
> offered
> from the perspective of current usage paradigms; unnavoidable, and 
> something
> we even struggle with ourselves! :) and instead focussing on actual 
> usage.
 
 Absolutely. Hence my preference for observing users over listen to what 
 they
 suggest. There is a delicate balance between being innovative and being
 user-centered.

> the social sciences struggle with this a lot: what people say about 
> their
> motivations, concerns, values, etc. and what actually motivates them
> and what
> actually fulflils their needs.
>
> it isn't for the scientists in those fields, and i expect it to be a
> constant
> challenge for us as we chart a path to introducing these new usage 
> paradigms
> to the world.

 Having studied Psychology, I am fully aware of these struggles. And 
 that
 is why I know that just doing everything people _say_ isn't the way to 
 go.
 The art is to extract the underlying needs and motivations from their
 open reactions, which is difficult but possible.