From: Dave A. <mig...@ch...> - 2004-06-20 07:48:25
|
> > Dave Ahlswede spake unto us the following wisdom: > > It could be more like this: > > > > | | text entry | > > | | | > > | icon |____________| > > | | buttons | > > | | | > > > > The only problem I can forsee with this is that it might make resizing > > the text area a little more awkward, but what do the devs think of this? > > I think that if you thought the current layout wasted space, you need to > look more closely at your proposed layout. > > Ethan > > -- > The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy > for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor > determined to commit crimes. > -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764 > The ascii mockups didn't work quite as well as I thought they would.. My proposed design would waste some vertical space above and below the icon; a lot if you wanted a really tall text input field with a small (AIM-sized) icon, but it wastes very little horizontal space. The current layout is great for a window with a small (or nonexistent) icon, but it gets progressively more wasteful with larger icons. (for every pixel taller the icon gets after 32px or so the below-text area has to get taller, and the amount of wasted space increases as the window width increases) Under my proposal, an iconless chat would be the same as it is now (the icon area would be hidden), and a small-icon chat would waste some vertical space on the left side (but a limited amount-- only increasing if the text entry area was grown.) But with a larger icon, they'd waste less space, and since the buttonbar at the bottom of the window could stay a fixed size, a bigger icon would mean a bigger minimum text entry area.. so it would potentially be useful and not simply whitespace. The default length from the bottom of the buttonbar to the top of the text entry area measures about 100 pixels on my setup by default (10pt font default GTK stock icons and LighthouseBlue engine), which happens to correspond to MSN's default icon size. (Which makes it about the perfect test case for this), so there's no wasted space in a large-icon chat. So, basically, the wasted-space scales up with icon size in the current layout, and it scales down in my proposal. And with a wider window (which I believe is more useful for a chat), the wasted space increases in the current layout, but won't increase in the proposed. I can put some graphical mockups together tomorrow if anyone's interested in considering this further. |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2004-06-20 14:43:17
|
Dave Ahlswede spake unto us the following wisdom: > > Dave Ahlswede spake unto us the following wisdom: > > > It could be more like this: > > >=20 > > > | | text entry | > > > | | | > > > | icon |____________| > > > | | buttons | > > > | | | >=20 > The ascii mockups didn't work quite as well as I thought they would.. My > proposed design would waste some vertical space above and below the icon; > a lot if you wanted a really tall text input field with a small=20 > (AIM-sized) icon, but it wastes very little horizontal space. The current= =20 > layout is great for a window with a small (or nonexistent) icon, but it= =20 > gets progressively more wasteful with larger icons. (for every pixel=20 > taller the icon gets after 32px or so the below-text area has to get=20 > taller, and the amount of wasted space increases as the window width=20 > increases) Ahh, I see what you are getting at now ... I agree. I turn off those stupid buttons, so I didn't understand. ;-) Ethan --=20 The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764 |
From: Nathan W. <fac...@fa...> - 2004-06-20 15:39:13
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Ethan Blanton wrote: > Dave Ahlswede spake unto us the following wisdom: > >>> Dave Ahlswede spake unto us the following wisdom: >>> > It could be more like this: >>> > >>> > | | text entry | >>> > | | | >>> > | icon |____________| >>> > | | buttons | >>> > | | | >> >>The ascii mockups didn't work quite as well as I thought they would.. My >>proposed design would waste some vertical space above and below the icon; >>a lot if you wanted a really tall text input field with a small >>(AIM-sized) icon, but it wastes very little horizontal space. The current >>layout is great for a window with a small (or nonexistent) icon, but it >>gets progressively more wasteful with larger icons. (for every pixel >>taller the icon gets after 32px or so the below-text area has to get >>taller, and the amount of wasted space increases as the window width >>increases) > > > Ahh, I see what you are getting at now ... I agree. I turn off those > stupid buttons, so I didn't understand. ;-) Mockups are stupid. I'm gonna make up some code to actually do this, since that's usually less effort than making the mockup in the first place. We'll see how well it works. -Nathan |
From: Nathan W. <fac...@fa...> - 2004-06-20 16:13:55
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
> Mockups are stupid. I'm gonna make up some code to actually do this, > since that's usually less effort than making the mockup in the first > place. We'll see how well it works. OK, here is what it would look like if I commit what I have. It looks pretty good. http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_pictures.png http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_text.png http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/no_buttons.png In this one I shrunk my entry a lot, so you could better see how the icon spans both rows. http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/squished_just_pictures.png What does everyone think? -Nathan |
From: Kevin M S. <ke...@si...> - 2004-06-20 16:28:42
|
Nathan Walp wrote: > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png Wasn't the idea Dave was getting at including the thought that if the icon was larger, say 96x96, and you had the picture and text mode enabled, it would also stretch up to the left of the entry box? Does it do that? I can't tell from your screenshots. I think the main problem is given that button bar is about 50 pixels tall with the full icon + text buttons, if you try to use a 96x96 icon, you're going to have an extra 46 pixels of height in the button bar, which is evil. Kevin |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2004-06-20 16:44:04
|
Kevin M Stange spake unto us the following wisdom: > >http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png >=20 > Wasn't the idea Dave was getting at including the thought that if the=20 > icon was larger, say 96x96, and you had the picture and text mode=20 > enabled, it would also stretch up to the left of the entry box? >=20 > Does it do that? I can't tell from your screenshots. Look at the squished one. Ethan --=20 The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764 |
From: Kevin M S. <ke...@si...> - 2004-06-20 20:55:14
|
Ethan Blanton wrote: > Kevin M Stange spake unto us the following wisdom: > >>>http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png >> >>Wasn't the idea Dave was getting at including the thought that if the >>icon was larger, say 96x96, and you had the picture and text mode >>enabled, it would also stretch up to the left of the entry box? >> >>Does it do that? I can't tell from your screenshots. > > > Look at the squished one. > The squished one does not have both pictures and text on it.... I am wondering if the pictures and text one is supposed to be to the left, which is, I guess the same question Christian is asking. Kevin |
From: Nathan W. <fac...@fa...> - 2004-06-20 21:56:37
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Kevin M Stange wrote: > Ethan Blanton wrote: > >> Kevin M Stange spake unto us the following wisdom: >> >>>> http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png >>> >>> >>> Wasn't the idea Dave was getting at including the thought that if the >>> icon was larger, say 96x96, and you had the picture and text mode >>> enabled, it would also stretch up to the left of the entry box? >>> >>> Does it do that? I can't tell from your screenshots. >> >> >> >> Look at the squished one. >> > > The squished one does not have both pictures and text on it.... > > I am wondering if the pictures and text one is supposed to be to the > left, which is, I guess the same question Christian is asking. The code compares the size of the icon to the size of the hbox holding the buttons. If the icon is taller, it has it span both rows. So on a 96x96 icon, it would look closer to the one with pictures, rather than the one with pictures and text. The pictures and text row is big enough that icon can fit in there with it when it's just an AIM 48x48 or 50x50 icon. If there's consensus that this is good, I'll commit this so you can play with it. -Nathan |
From: Christian H. <ch...@gn...> - 2004-06-20 22:04:49
|
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 05:56:32PM -0400, Nathan Walp wrote: > The code compares the size of the icon to the size of the hbox holding=20 > the buttons. If the icon is taller, it has it span both rows. So on a= =20 > 96x96 icon, it would look closer to the one with pictures, rather than=20 > the one with pictures and text. The pictures and text row is big enough= =20 > that icon can fit in there with it when it's just an AIM 48x48 or 50x50= =20 > icon. >=20 > If there's consensus that this is good, I'll commit this so you can play= =20 > with it. Oh, cool. Yeah, I like that. :) Christian --=20 Christian Hammond <> The GNUpdate Project ch...@gn... <> http://www.gnupdate.org/ "The greatest mistake a person can make is to be afraid of making one." -- Elbert Hubbard |
From: Ethan B. <ebl...@cs...> - 2004-06-20 16:44:23
|
Nathan Walp spake unto us the following wisdom: > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_pictures.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_text.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/no_buttons.png Man that guy is SEXY. Does anybody know him? Ethan --=20 The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764 |
From: Ka-Hing C. <ja...@ja...> - 2004-06-20 17:25:41
|
Nathan Walp said: It looks good, but I think it would look better if a bit of icon scaling magic is applied. >> Mockups are stupid. I'm gonna make up some code to actually do this, >> since that's usually less effort than making the mockup in the first >> place. We'll see how well it works. > > OK, here is what it would look like if I commit what I have. It looks > pretty good. > > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_pictures.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_text.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/no_buttons.png This three scale the icon up to the height of the text entry. > > In this one I shrunk my entry a lot, so you could better see how the > icon spans both rows. > > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/squished_just_pictures.png This one scale the icon so that it's as tall as entry+button. The idea is to scale the icon up so that it would align with the entry or entry+button bar. I don't know about the people who have insanely tall text entry though, maybe make it only scale the icon up to a certain point? -khc > > What does everyone think? > > -Nathan > > |
From: Nathan W. <fac...@fa...> - 2004-06-20 18:57:38
Attachments:
signature.asc
|
Ka-Hing Cheung wrote: > Nathan Walp said: > > It looks good, but I think it would look better if a bit of icon scaling magic > is applied. > > >>>Mockups are stupid. I'm gonna make up some code to actually do this, >>>since that's usually less effort than making the mockup in the first >>>place. We'll see how well it works. >> >>OK, here is what it would look like if I commit what I have. It looks >>pretty good. >> >>http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_pictures.png >>http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_text.png >>http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/no_buttons.png > > > This three scale the icon up to the height of the text entry. > > >>In this one I shrunk my entry a lot, so you could better see how the >>icon spans both rows. >> >>http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/squished_just_pictures.png > > > This one scale the icon so that it's as tall as entry+button. > > The idea is to scale the icon up so that it would align with the entry or > entry+button bar. I don't know about the people who have insanely tall text > entry though, maybe make it only scale the icon up to a certain point? No. Scaling icons makes them look bad. Especially if they have text in them. We already get complaints about that from win32 users where there's something a tad screwy with the way we get the icon size, in deciding if we should scale or not. -Nathan |
From: Christian H. <ch...@gn...> - 2004-06-20 20:40:31
|
On Sun, Jun 20, 2004 at 12:13:49PM -0400, Nathan Walp wrote: > >Mockups are stupid. I'm gonna make up some code to actually do this,=20 > >since that's usually less effort than making the mockup in the first=20 > >place. We'll see how well it works. >=20 > OK, here is what it would look like if I commit what I have. It looks=20 > pretty good. >=20 > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_pictures.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/just_text.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/pictures_and_text.png > http://faceprint.com/code/gaim/no_buttons.png I like it. I am confused, though, about the Pictures And Text one. It seems a bit inconsistent with the others, and if the icon is 96x96, would we really want it like that? I'd probably have to run it to see. Otherwise, looks good. Christian --=20 Christian Hammond <> The GNUpdate Project ch...@gn... <> http://www.gnupdate.org/ <Tobias-> It's my distorted vision of reality. If you're not happy, type your own. |
From: Martin O. <mar...@ma...> - 2004-06-21 10:10:30
|
Hello, first I'd like to say that the new layout really appears to be better. Can't wait for the new gaim (win32) version to be available for me... On the other hand I would like to ask for a buddy icon hiding button. Maybe it could be displayed right next to the buddy icon (actually more like the resizeable bar dividing typing and reading area already is) and no need for it to be visible unless the buddy icon is really available. So it could come oud more like this (almost as proposed by Dave Ahlswede): | | text entry | | < | | icon <____________| | < buttons | | | | The only difference would be in the vertical (small, just a few number of pixels wide, look for the '<' characters added) bar dividing icon from the typing area and containing a button to hide the icon. Pleas note that it could be grabbable also enabling to resize the icon area. That way, if the icon area gets dragged smaller, the image itself could be scaled (to fit into area). By the way - a quick way to see image in right size would be inside a tooltip :) Also please note that hiding of the buddy icon would be more usable if the state icon-hidden could be remembered for each of the buddies. On the other hand, especially for people using only one single window (containing multiple IM sessions), maybe this icon-area would still be better, if it changes in the same way for all the IM sessions currently tabbed into the window. Finally, once written down the icon-hiding thing, I would like to note that maybe even better place for the buddy icon would be inside the upper left corner of the conversation area. Hovering over the text area (not covering the scrollbar!). So the IM window would look like this (expressed in ASCII art): +-------------------------+ |buddy: message2 | | |buddy: message1 > | |me: message_sent1 |_____| | | | | |------------VVV----------| |<formatting_toolbar>_____| |message to be sent | |_________________________| |<operation_button_area> | +-------------------------+ Please note the '>' and 'VVV' marks here too, expressing the buttons for resizable areas to grab for. Just in case, as I happen to have time for it, let me draw a icon-hidden variant of the window too :): +-------------------------+ |buddy: message2 || |buddy: message1 >| |me: message_sent1 || | | | | |------------VVV----------| |<formatting_toolbar>_____| |message to be sent | |_________________________| |<operation_button_area> | +-------------------------+ Please note that this icon area should not cover the scrollbar for the conversation area. It could very much be just next (to the left) of it. Also I currently don't know the behavior for wrapping of the text inside the area contrary to the icon thingy. It would be nice for the text not to go under the icon thingy. > >> > The only problem I can forsee with this is that it might make resizing >> > the text area a little more awkward, but what do the devs think of this? >> >> I think that if you thought the current layout wasted space, you need to >> look more closely at your proposed layout. >> >> Ethan >> >> -- >> The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws [that have no remedy >> for evils]. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor >> determined to commit crimes. >> -- Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishments", 1764 >> > > > > The ascii mockups didn't work quite as well as I thought they would.. My > proposed design would waste some vertical space above and below the icon; > a lot if you wanted a really tall text input field with a small > (AIM-sized) icon, but it wastes very little horizontal space. The current > layout is great for a window with a small (or nonexistent) icon, but it > gets progressively more wasteful with larger icons. (for every pixel > taller the icon gets after 32px or so the below-text area has to get > taller, and the amount of wasted space increases as the window width > increases) > > Under my proposal, an iconless chat would be the same as it is now (the > icon area would be hidden), and a small-icon chat would waste some vertical > space on the left side (but a limited amount-- only increasing if the text > entry area was grown.) But with a larger icon, they'd waste less space, and > since the buttonbar at the bottom of the window could stay a fixed size, a > bigger icon would mean a bigger minimum text entry area.. so it would > potentially be useful and not simply whitespace. > > The default length from the bottom of the buttonbar to the top of the text > entry area measures about 100 pixels on my setup by default (10pt font > default GTK stock icons and LighthouseBlue engine), which happens to > correspond to MSN's default icon size. (Which makes it about the perfect > test case for this), so there's no wasted space in a large-icon chat. > > So, basically, the wasted-space scales up with icon size in the current > layout, and it scales down in my proposal. And with a wider window > (which I believe is more useful for a chat), the wasted space increases > in the current layout, but won't increase in the proposed. > > I can put some graphical mockups together tomorrow if anyone's interested > in considering this further. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------- > This SF.Net email is sponsored by The 2004 JavaOne(SM) Conference > Learn from the experts at JavaOne(SM), Sun's Worldwide Java Developer > Conference, June 28 - July 1 at the Moscone Center in San Francisco, CA > REGISTER AND SAVE! http://java.sun.com/javaone/sf Priority Code NWMGYKND > _______________________________________________ > Gaim-devel mailing list > Gai...@li... > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/gaim-devel > > |
From: Martin O. <mar...@ma...> - 2004-06-21 21:56:17
|
Hello, first I'd like to say that the new layout really appears to be better. Can't wait for the new gaim (win32) version to be available for me... On the other hand I would like to ask for a buddy icon hiding button (to be said in short). Maybe it could be displayed right next to the buddy icon (actually more like the resizeable bar dividing typing and reading area already is) and no need for it to be visible unless the buddy icon is really available. So it could come oud more like this (almost as proposed by Dave): | | text entry | | < | | icon <____________| | < buttons | | | | The only difference would be in the vertical (small, just a few number of pixels wide, look for the '<' characters added) bar dividing icon from the typing area and containing a button to hide the icon. Pleas note that it could be grabbable also enabling to resize the icon area. That way, if the icon area gets dragged smaller, the image itself could be scaled (to fit into area). By the way - a quick way to see image in right size would be inside a tooltip :) Also please note that hiding of the buddy icon would be more usable if the state icon-hidden could be remembered for each of the buddies. On the other hand, especially for people using only one single window (containing multiple IM sessions), maybe this icon-area would still be better, if it changes in the same way for all the IM sessions currently tabbed into the window. Finally, once written down the icon-hiding thing, I would like to note that maybe even better place for the buddy icon would be inside the upper left corner of the conversation area. Hovering over the text area (not covering the scrollbar!). So the IM window would look like this (expressed in ASCII art): +-------------------------+ |buddy: message2 | | |buddy: message1 > | |me: message_sent1 |_____| | | | | |------------VVV----------| |<formatting_toolbar>_____| |message to be sent | |_________________________| |<operation_button_area> | +-------------------------+ Please note the '>' and 'VVV' marks here too, expressing the buttons for resizable areas to grab for. Just in case, as I happen to have time for it, let me draw a icon-hidden variant of the window too :): +-------------------------+ |buddy: message2 || |buddy: message1 >| |me: message_sent1 || | | | | |------------VVV----------| |<formatting_toolbar>_____| |message to be sent | |_________________________| |<operation_button_area> | +-------------------------+ Please note that this icon area should not cover the scrollbar for the conversation area. It could very much be just next (to the left) of it. Also I currently don't know the behavior for wrapping of the text inside the area contrary to the icon thingy. It would be nice for the text not to go under the icon thingy. PS! In case someone feels like it should, please feel free to form out a decent feature request based on this message and post a link to it (at least for me). -- Martin |