Why rotate widgets?

[nuno pinheiro]

On Tuesday 07 September 2010 20:24:28 Diego Moya wrote:
> On 7 September 2010 14:33, Asraniel wrote:
> > Appart from the wrongly choosen icon (which looks like a refresh button),
> > i really can't see any problem with that feature.
> > Don't let us go the gnome way and delete every feature that not at least
> > 100%
> > of the people use.
> 
> I don't think we're talking removing this feature. Me, I was suggesting
> creating a better, more flexible interface for it.
> 
> On 7 September 2010 15:07, nuno pinheiro wrote:
> > On Tuesday 07 September 2010 13:48:53 Markus Slopianka wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 07 September 2010 12:11:52 nuno pinheiro wrote:
> > > > does it create visual cluter? no..
> > > 
> > > Sure it does.
> > 
> > NO IT dosent, puting my designers hat. that tollbar is not clutered,
> > minimalist as i like to be but to much empty space is also bad. that
> > toolbar
> > is clean and as just about the correct amount of butons.
> 
> You must have a really big screen, or never use small widgets at all. The
> buttons in the toolbar get in the way when trying to drag the widget; one
> must carefully search for an empty place in the bar to drag. Every
> additional button reduces the size of the dragging area for my primary
> interaction with widgets, which is moving them to a different place.

obviusly you don't use plasmoids much do you? :) 
most plasmois are drag-able by pressing any empty area of them you don't even 
need the handle. i tested to actually use the handle and i need to make a 
plasmoid smaller that usable to be able to create a problem.


> Good design implies that less-used features are made less pronounced. I for
> one find the whole widget tool-bar too intrusive. I put my widgets
> side-by-side on the desktop, and during normal use the tool-bar on one
> widget will overlap the one besides it, obscuring its contents. I would be
> happier if the toolbar would only show on demand by clicking a toggle
> button (a cashew?), not by hovering over the widget.

well myself after i set up my desktops as i want it i lock it down, so id ont 
get no rotate no scale no nothing IMO this is the intended behaviour frist you 
set it up then you use it and you are done with it. if you want to change it 
unlock it and do as you please if rotation is one of such things great you 
can.


> YMMV anyway, different users have different needs. My point is that giving
> prominent place to rarely used features *does* get in the way and is
> disturbing for someone. Note that I'm not asking for it to be changed
> (dashboards in general are of little use for me), I just want to illustrate
> how it can be a real problem for some people, that should not be hand-waved
> away.

realy I dont see it proimenent at all it only shows wen you unlock your 
screen.



> I suppose the definition of "clutter" and "what gets in the way" is
> personal. I can only think of two ways to prioritize placement of features
> in the interface, for an open project like KDE:
> - what developers feel is right for their personal use, or
> - the expected frequency of use for that feature.
> 
> > > > on the plus side its a good marketing tool----- see i can rotate the
> > > > clock
> > > > 
> > > > :) do that in windows will you...
> > >
> > >Reply:
> > >shrug "Why would I want to rotate a clock?"
> > 
> > Why woud i want to play tictack toe? Why woud i want place my windows in
> > difrent positions? Why woud i want this or that.
> 
> So why don't we place a tic tac toe game on the default desktop
> configuration? ;-)
> That's right, it would not be used most of the time, by most users.
> 
> On 7 September 2010 17:12, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >  On Tuesday, September 7, 2010, Markus Slopianka wrote:
> > > Isn't this one of those micro-options we once stated to get rid of?
> > 
> > no. it's a fairly commonly used feature and doesn't get in the way of
> > other items nor other code paths.
> > 
> > 
> > I agree that this feature is not one of those micro-configurations that
> 
> plagued previous iterations of KDE. Still, I fail to see the need to have
> it always on, always available.
> 
> Do people really move and rotate their widgets, with the same frequency
> that they interact with their contents? As far as I can see, none of the
> use cases presented in this thread would be hurt by a "configuration only
> mode", while it does get in the way for some of us in its current form.
> 
> What was the original reasoning in having the complete direct-manipulation
> interface for plasmoid applets always present? Is it for the kool effect?
> To make it discoverable? Or is there a benefit in having the toolbar
> always available that I'm missing?

I'm now geesing that you never locked the plasma desktop..... i very rarely 
unlock it, maybe if somthing is not discoverable is the locking mecanism, i 
find it essencial to a good experience in kde as you said no one constantly 
chages the desktop setup.


-- 
oxygen guy, "I make the pretty pictures"