thoughts on the systray

[Waldo Bastian]

On Monday 14 February 2005 22:35, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> On Monday 14 of February 2005 22:19, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > On Monday 14 February 2005 21:00, Lubos Lunak wrote:
> > > 2) applet-like cases
> > > - e.g. kxkb, klipper
> >
> > Isn't the only difference that they don't have a "window" asociated with
> > them?
>
>  It is, but it's _the_ difference. Basically kxkb the systray icon the
> systray icon is the main interface. With some app which uses systray for
> minimizing the window is the main interface, and the systray icon is just
> something additional. It makes the two things very different for me,
> different concepts.

I think there are 3 functional aspects:
* Access to main window (like a takbar-entry)
* Status indicator
* Quick access to main functions

And a 4th one that seems to be shared by all:
* Persistent non-intrusive UI presence

I think the 4th one drives the concept, the other 3 just provide value tot the 
concept. So you can argue whether it is truly necassery to use the systray 
icon for something that only needs 1 out of these 3, in the end that's a 
decission based on a cost-value evaluation *), I don't think any of the 3 
aspects are fundamental in and of themselves, only 4 is.

I think it may make sense to approach, from a technical implementation point 
of view, the systray as an extension of the taskbar. However, from the 
perspective of an application developer, there should be a real distinction 
between taskbar and systray, using the systray should be a conscious design 
decision on the part of the application developer (keeping in mind the 
cost-value evaluation mentioned above), and a choice for the systray should 
result in certain garantees with respect to presence/visibility and access by 
the user.

As a secondary concern, perhaps even as an afterthought, it could be made 
possible for the user to override the initial decision of the application 
developer and migrate the application from systray to taskbar or vice versa. 
But that's a fringe concern aimed at the 1% of users that want to have their 
favourite app in the systray or to correct misguided *) decisions from 
application developers who may have different ideas about value than the 
end-user.

It's like Konquerors can-do-everything design: from a technical design point 
of view this is a great approach, however to get a usable UI you must 
artificially restrict the possibilities based on the roles that you identify 
from a user-machine interaction point of view. As a whole this is a very 
powerful approach because it allows you to make decisions from a UI and 
usability point of view without the technical design getting in your way. 
It's a mistake to think that the technical design alone is a complete 
solution though, the different roles must be clearly defined as well.

Cheers,
Waldo

*) Cost: the screen-estate available to the systray is limited and the more 
icons it contains the less effective it becomes.
*) Misguided: application developers have a tendency to think that their 
application is the most important one the user has ever seen or used and 
should therefor be present in all possible UI locations (main-menu, panel, 
desktop, system tray) and started automatically on log-in. Users do not 
always agree with this assessment, especially those users that use more than 
1 application.
-- 
bastian at kde.org   |   Free Novell Linux Desktop 9 Evaluation Download
bastian at suse.com  |   http://www.novell.com/products/desktop/eval.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20050215/383290c7/attachment.sig>