Concept 0.5, mockup #1

[Dan Meltzer]

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 2:53 PM, Thomas Lübking <thomas.luebking at web.de> wrote:
> 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 ;-)

Yes, but we /wont/ require KDE 4.4.  The dependancy is kde4.2 and will
stay that way as long as possible
> - 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Amarok-devel mailing list
> Amarok-devel at kde.org
> https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/amarok-devel
>