Concept 0.5, mockup #1

[Thomas Lübking]

first off: 
a dynamic UI is /not/ related to the use of animations, animated transitions 
;-)

For the rest:
- KDE 4.4 /will/ require Qt 4.6 (don't ask, not my decision, won't argue ;-)
- animations can be done w/o 4.6 (it's just easier/more convenient)
- animations for the sake of animating is in fact a bad idea, to smooth out 
transitions it is not.

Though one has to be VERY carefull esp. with sliding animations, a quick slide 
-even across just two frames- is far less irritating than a "BWUAAA" popup ;-)

As humans need a (very short, though pretty long in a CPU scope) moment to 
adjust to the new condition it's also not blocking you.

And if anyone fears about my personal ambitions:

I do not like the slide back desktop effect.
I like and appreciate the idea, but i find even that too much distressing.

Noticed that Bespin does /not/ hover lineedits? That's intentional.

Hope that convinces everyone that i'm not interested or after any <blink/>

Thomas

> Which would only be doable the day *all* distros ship Qt 4.6. Just
> remember that Amarok needs to run on all distros and all platforms, so
> animations based on Qt 4.6 are certainly not for now.
> 
> I would speak against animations by default anyway, since this is most
> of the time more disturbing than anything else.  It doesn't really
> enhance usability IMHO, but lets leave that to the real experts. I
> wouldn't mind as options, but in a sane amount, since too much bling
> kills the app.
> 
> 
> Regards, Myriam.
>