Review Request: Humble attempt to improve the ScreenSaver KCM

[Marco Martin]

On Saturday 13 October 2012, Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> >     narrow to hold unit indicators to me, but I suppose this would
> >     change in the final implementation
> 
> We can do a lot better than this.
> 
> Note the complete lack of visual alignment, the mix of widget placement
> strategies (left, right; vertical, horizontal) .. meh.
> 
> So .. let's step back and reconsider our assumptions.
> 
> Is this something a person configures *often*? No. So does it need to be
> hyper optimized for speed usage? No.
> 
> How much granularity do we need to offer in the UI for things like how long
> to wait until a password is required? Not much.
> 

I'll answer to this very briefly, with a short synopsys of what i think about 
that dialog:
How ends up in the details, order and disposition of widgets, i don't care 
that much, but there are some things that are important for me:

* it should remain very simple, showing as little as possible (not more than 
the current dialog anyways)

* both the "simple locker" and the screensaver are not here to stay, but are 
meant to be a transition to a single one based on plasma-overlay, so don't 
lose too much time with the configuration that regards them

* anything regarding the particular appearance/behavior of the plasma-overlay 
locker (wallpaper, locker greeter, whatever) should be in the preview mode of 
the greeter, as is now: it's direct manipulation vs a disconnected remote 
control that is that dialog (concept present all over the place in plasma)

* yes, the plasma based locker needs a bit of ui refresh as well (was thinking 
about always showing the unlock dialog, and the toolbox only when previewed, 
when running would be always systemimmutable)

* when the plasma based locker will be good enough, and when there will be 
enough qml wallpapers, i think the simple and xscreensaver can be killed

those are just my two cents

Cheers, 
Marco Martin