From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mga11.intel.com (mga11.intel.com [192.55.52.93]) by yocto-www.yoctoproject.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 79850E0030F for ; Fri, 3 Feb 2012 10:32:24 -0800 (PST) Received: from fmsmga001.fm.intel.com ([10.253.24.23]) by fmsmga102.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 10:32:23 -0800 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.71,315,1320652800"; d="scan'208";a="113777151" Received: from unknown (HELO [10.255.14.217]) ([10.255.14.217]) by fmsmga001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 03 Feb 2012 10:32:23 -0800 Message-ID: <4F2C2837.8040606@linux.intel.com> Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:32:23 -0800 From: Joshua Lock User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:9.0) Gecko/20111222 Thunderbird/9.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: "Barros Pena, Belen" References: In-Reply-To: Cc: "yocto@yoctoproject.org" , "Metthey, Mikael" Subject: Re: Hob 1.2 design - visuals X-BeenThere: yocto@yoctoproject.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.13 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussion of all things Yocto List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 18:32:24 -0000 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On 03/02/12 03:52, Barros Pena, Belen wrote: > Hi Joshua, > > Thanks for the feedback. I don't have definite answers to your questions: > I think they should come out of a discussion between design and dev teams. I agree. > My first stab to some answers below. > >> 1) where the visual design differentiates from the toolkit (Gtk+) is the >> intention that we should use the toolkit provided widgets or create our >> own to more closely match the visual design? >> (for example the tabs for notebook pages in the 'Building Packages' >> screen). > > I have no experience with GTK, but I would hope that standard widgets can > be themed. So the idea would be using toolkit widgets themed to match the > visual style. Is this assumption incorrect? The widgets can indeed be themed, but in the favour of visual consistency across the system I usually try to avoid it unless there's a compelling reason to do so. Perhaps we can address differences between visual design and toolkit on a case-by-case basis? Implement with the toolkit provided widgets and OS theme and review which things we might want to enhance later? > If no toolkit widget exist for a certain UI control, we have to either > replace it with a toolkit widget or create our own, but I really hope this > is the exception rather than the rule. Oh yes, I don't think that's the case for Hob. It was the exception for some work I did on Moblin but certainly not the rule, in fact that widget is part of the standard toolkit now. >> 2) When implementing Hob v1 I tried to follow the GNOME HIG[1] to ensure >> the app would fit in with the common Linux desktop environments. Should >> v2 continue that trend? Where the visual design might differ with the >> HIG which should be preferred? >> (i.e. the button being flush with the bottom of the window in the Image >> Configuration screen is what first struck me here). > > Nothing in the design should blatantly contradict the GNOME HIG: in > general they are good design practice and we wouldn't ignore them without > a reason to do so. If there are any exceptions (like the primary action > button one) we could look at them on a case by case basis. I don't think > leaving 12 pixels between the bottom of the window edge and the button > will make or break the interface. What's important is that the location > and spacing of those 'primary action' buttons are consistent across the > whole Hob. If we feel we shouldn't break the 12px rule, I am sure Mikael > will agree that the button effect is not that important, and that we can > lift it up to fit the spacing GNOME rules. This is great to read. I was hoping to elicit such a response and just wanted to make sure engineering and design are on the same page here. It feels like we are? I understand that 12px won't make or break the interface but I'm definitely pro consistent UI across the whole OS where possible. I expect I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'll leave it at that. >> 3) where the visual design uses various colours I assume the intention >> is to use the colours from the operating systems theme? This is slightly >> more difficult programatically than hard-coding colours but leads to (in >> my opinion) a much more pleasing visual experience. >> (i.e. tooltip and button colours) > > Yes, using the colours from the OS theme is probably the best thing to do. Awesome! I'd go so far as to say it's definitely the best thing to do. I didn't manage it with Hob 1 and had some ugly screenshots sent my way from poor users who dared to use a different theme than me. >> Finally, I notice that the titlebar calls it HOB, instead of Hob - was >> that intentional? Hob was always mean as a name, not an acronym. > > It's a typo: sorry about that. It should say Hob of course. No need to apologise. Just wanted to make sure. Thanks for your response, Joshua -- Joshua Lock Yocto Project "Johannes factotum" Intel Open Source Technology Centre