toolbar icons

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 09.08.09 14:32:21, David Nolden wrote:
> Am Sonntag 09 August 2009 12:38:59 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
> > For sake of talking about what actually happens, lets look at the following
> > three screenshots I've just done after completely removing
> > $HOME/.kde/share/(config|apps)/kdev*, i.e. what is shown on initially
> > starting kdevelop.
> >
> > First one without any changes whatsoever:
> > http://www.apaku.de/vardata/kdev4_initial_start.png
> >
> > Two problems are clearly visible:
> >  - broken default size, the window needs to me a lot larger
> >  - the debugger toolbar needs to be moved to the debug area
> >
> > However, both quickopen and contextbrowser toolbar are fully visible. Qt
> > properly compresses non-widget actions.
> >
> > Now, lets remove the debugger toolbar:
> > http://www.apaku.de/vardata/kdev4_initial_nodbg.png
> >
> > If we wouldn't have the perspective actions there, we'd have run, build or
> > debug visible already, without fixing the mainwindow size even
> >
> > So, choosing a sane default, netbooks these days seem to have 1024x768
> > already, so I've resized the window to that (aproximately, taking a panel
> > into account) and we get:
> > http://www.apaku.de/vardata/kdev4_initial_sane_size.png
> >
> > Again, without the area-actions and probably some less separators we'd have
> > the 5-6 most-used actions clearly visible and also the quickopen and
> > contextbrowser. So the user is surely aware of both widgets and both are
> > usable too as the expanded widget they show when activating them resizes
> > itself so that it shows all the information needed.
> >
> > And looking at:
> > http://www.apaku.de/vardata/kdev4_initial_ctxbrws.png
> >
> > I can even use the context browser to see in which function I am in simpler
> > code (which is what beginner users will have usually).
> You can see a little fraction of the function you're in, and only in 'simple' 
> code. It should _always_ show at least the whole function name, else it is not 
> really useful.

On 1024x768 you don't have that much choice anyway. Its just a pretty
small screen to put that many ui elements into one single line.
 
> Am I really the only one who thinks that the screenshots you've sent are ugly? 

I actually like them, yes.

> Do you really think that is a good user interface for an IDE?

On such a small screen: Yes.

> Apart from the 
> wasted space, it looks cluttered due to the text and the large vertical size 
> of the toolbar.

No, it actually adds some whitespace so it doesn't look cluttered and as
if we've tried to cramp as many things into as little space as possible.

Also I'd like to add that we can actually reduce the text of most
actions in the toolbar to a single word. Which means we'll have more
space without removing the text and without having the more-verbose text
in the menu, simply set iconText on the action. That will then be used
in toolbars. There's for example no reason for the word "Launch" in the
run/debug actions. Just "Run" and "Debug" would be enough and then we
can instantly fit 1-2 more icons or have more space for the lineedits.

> This is how it IMO should look:
> http://zwabel.wordpress.com/files/2009/08/kdev5_ui_new_2.png

I guess I don't need to say explicitly that this clutteres the toolbar
buttons too much IMO.

BTW: One other thing that those small buttons make harder: Actually
hitting it, thats one of the main reasons (apart from not being able to
memorize the icons) why I still have text-under-icons here.  I simply
don't mind the extra pixels taken by it because I find them to be useful

> You see the whole function you're in, and you have the maximum amount of 
> vertical space available in the editor, both of which increase productivity.

Seriously, I don't need the latter, that one additional line in the
editor IMHO doesn't justify the problems you create for part of our
userbase regarding the toolbar buttons. Unless you've got 2 monitors,
rotated with 1900x1200 resolution, on top of each other you'll always
have code where you cannot fit a whole function into one editor-page.

> > Thats it, for me this case is clearly closed as removing the text doesn't
> > provide enough added value that make up for the problems caused by it.
> I'm not convinced yet, I would like to hear some more opinions.

And neither am I about your suggestion.

> If the majority reall perfers the with-text version, I will be fine.

So you want to do a poll?

Andreas

-- 
You like to form new friendships and make new acquaintances.