On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 02:55:12PM +0200, Mark wrote: > 2008/4/15, Paul W. Frields <stickster@xxxxxxxxx>: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:10:52AM +0300, Nicu Buculei wrote: > > > Paul W. Frields wrote: > > >> > > >> The lock dialog defaults to the "plain" version for usability reasons > > >> -- that's something that's been decided upstream by GNOME and we > > >> probably won't be changing it any time soon. > > > > > > While I understand the point about usability (and appreciate you did the > > > work and submitted a design - IIRC this in not the first time you do that), > > > don't you think the root of the problem has to be addressed? > > > If we think a feature is that bad for usability reasons, shouldn't we just > > > drop it? Or make the themed dialog more usable or the simple dialog > > > prettier? > > > There *must* be a way to have something both usable and pleasant looking. > > > > > > To me, shipping two dialogs, one that is usable and another that is pretty > > > is like knowingly ship something broken and just papering over it a > > > temporary solution. > > > And I learned sometime you have to break the temporary solution to get the > > > problem solved properly. > > > > > > Just for the record, I don't disagree at all with wanting to have a > > prettier lock dialog, I just haven't felt particularly burdened by it. > > I'd say, lobby the desktop guys about this and work something out. :-) > > > > This isn't the first time (or the only subproject) ;-) where we start > > talking about these changes too late in the release cycle, but maybe > > we can get a permanent, mutually acceptable solution for Fedora 10. > > However, it ought to be just that, a *solution*, rather than simply > > advocating for switching a default without knowing why it hasn't been > > that way before. > > > > I'm cc'ing some of the desktop guys personally just because we want to > > get their attention -- hopefully they can explain what the usability > > factors are, and how we can have a design that meets those > > requirements for the future while looking prettier. > > > Now that's going better. Yet I failed to CC the people in question, sorry. Taking care of that with this message. > But why is it so hard to adjust one gconf value by default? Fedora > does that with firefox and i'm sure with others as well. So why is it > so hard to change one gconf value by default? Isn't there a global > conf package in fedora that manages the gconf changes? It's not hard, we just try to minimize it. Working with upstream is the Fedora mantra. > And if you read the reply's here everyone wants to have it on by > default, even you said that, so.. what's the point in ignoring that? > Don't tell me that making it themed can "confuse" users (something > like that was said when i requested it in the F8 development cycle). That's not what I said -- please reread. I said I wouldn't object to having a better lock dialog, but that needs to be done in concert with upstream and whatever usability standards apply. > Btw i saw the lock dialog now and it's height is a bit overdone for > just a lock dialog if you ask me. I will make a mockup of what i like > later today. I'm glad you're now interested in doing this. -- Paul W. Frields http://paul.frields.org/ gpg fingerprint: 3DA6 A0AC 6D58 FEC4 0233 5906 ACDB C937 BD11 3717 http://redhat.com/ - - - - http://pfrields.fedorapeople.org/ irc.freenode.net: stickster @ #fedora-docs, #fedora-devel, #fredlug
Attachment:
pgpzHQjFnZLXj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Fedora-art-list mailing list Fedora-art-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-art-list
