Workspace Next Sprint Organization

[Alex Fiestas]

On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:51:16 PM Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wednesday 16 May 2012, Alex Fiestas wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 09:49:22 AM Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 05:24:56 Alex Fiestas wrote:
> > > > On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:07:08 AM Björn Balazs wrote:
> > > > > Have you been aware of this vision?
> > > > 
> > > > No.
> > > > 
> > > > > If no: looking back would it have been helpful for your work if you
> > > > > had known it (and how)?
> > > > 
> > > > No (I don't see how to apply it on Bluedevil / RandR / Kamoso).
> > > 
> > > two that are immediately applicable:
> > > 
> > > * "organic" and scalable user interfaces
> > 
> > I don't exactly now what those are, can you explain? or better, can you
> > apply those concepts to the current BlueDevil implementation?
> 
> organic: looking less as a computer object, but interacting more as a real
> object: so animated instead of immediate transitions (something appearing
> immediately is "magic"), rounded corners, shadows, preferring direct
> manipulation rather than by some proxy (ie resize by dragging instead of
> writing the number of pixels somewhere) and many things like that.
> if you compare with kde3 we are miles ahead on this regard but still not
> there.
> note that this is different, and risking to be confused with skeuomorphism
> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skeuomorph), that tends to destroy coherence
> and create uncanny valleys, so one moves over a thin line here ;)
> 
> scalable: mostly referring to the available space so screen size (or just
> containment size, applets in panels vs desktop)
> we started with the formfactor concept and gone forward with the device
> specific qml files for plasmoids (experimental news reader, microblog)
Thanks for the definitions.

Both organic and scalable interfaces are means to an end if i understood them 
correctly: making interfaces that feel natural. 
Maybe we should put that into the vision instead?

> > For RandR I could add the posibility of modify the default settings and
> > tied them to Activity (pretty much like PowerDevil does right now). Not
> > that interesting imho.
> 
> a little inner voice is whispering "presentation with a beamer" ;)
> the activity switch causing also the powermanagement settings to switch and
> the right presentation files to open could even be triggered by the
> detection of the projector :p </bluesky>
Oh that's a good idea indeed! I'm a bit worried though about things changing 
automagically.

> > Considering that applications like Dolphin or Gwenview are part of it as
> > well as Solid (hardware integration) I find many parts of that vision
> > vaguely applicable or at least not clearly applicable.
> 
> to me the boundaries should blurry more and more until nobody cares what an
> app is, every functionality shared in any way between apps, just going in
> the global environment (like we did with slc) dolphin should be part of the
> workspace without the user even noticing on what they are using (yeah, i
> know that for the developer having the name of his product well visible is
> important and )
*** fuck ego's *** :p
> > Also there are some parts of the vision I don't understand, imho we should
> > explain them or use other words.
> 
> yep, i agree especially in last years there wasn't much put out on the
> outside
> > -scalable interfaces ?
> > -today's contexts ?
> > -direct manipulation interfaces
> > -organic look and feel.
> 
> hmm, maybe a glossary could be compiled on the wiki?
> also some of them derive from actual psychology studies (like why not having
> sliding animations for appearing things plays bad tricks to the brain), I
> would like having a bit of bibliography on this, but sadly i don't :/
> 
> there is a minimum common language that should really be a given for
> participating on a thing like that, I advise to everybody (but especially to
> who is coming there) some good reads (those are more about ux design
> details but are concept useful anyways for a broader vision definition):
> http://www.andrewschechterman.com/AndrewSchechterman/Qi_Fa_files/UX%20Glossa
> ry.pdf http://cyborganthropology.com/UX_Glossary
> http://blog.usabilla.com/the-usability-abc-part-2/#more-3075
> http://uxmag.com/
If for understanding our vision we have to read all that then it is not a good 
vision imho. Maybe I don't understand what a vision should is though (this is 
the first time I'm participating in something like this).

> i think most of what's written in a permanent place is there:
> http://community.kde.org/Plasma#Interface_Standards_and_Research
> 
> sadly quite outdated. a thing that would be very good from the sprint by the
> non coders that will participate is to write, write and write about those
> topics ;)
I hope seba's is updated since he is the only core plasma developer comming 
(aham aham u.U).

> > At the end a user spent most of its time on applications.
> 
> true, but the fact that this distinction exists in the first place may be
> part of the problem (false dichotomy?)
> 
> ie with the machine i want to perform task x to produce or view a certain
> thing, not use application y, atomicity of applications is in part a
> technical detail, in part historical commercial reasons to have a product
> in a store.
Mmm these last lines have been an eye opener for me, I need some time to think 
and process them :p